Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Scottish Coalfield

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on visits by Ministers in his Department to pits in the Scottish coalfield.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I was extremely impressed during my recent visit to the Scottish coalfield to hear of the measures being taken to reduce costs and improve productivity.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that to a large extent those measures are related to providing good industrial relations? Will he note that while some improvements have been made by reinstating some of the miners sacked during the strike, more that 130 men face this Christmas having been out of work for two years? Is he aware that there is increasing suspicion, indeed evidence, that some of those out of work are unemployed because of their trade union associations? Will the Minister take steps to approach the coal board again in Scotland to ensure that those men who have been unjustifiably treated receive fair treatment?

Mr. Hunt: The reinstatement of sacked Scottish miners is a matter for the Scottish area. Comparisons vary

between different cases, and are neither useful nor valid. I understand that most of the dismissed miners in the Scottish area have been reinterviewed for reinstatement, and that more than 70 have been offered employment. Decisions following such reviews must be for area management, and those who have not been reinstated may take their case to an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that investment in the Scottish fields has increased from £61 million during the five years before 1979 to £160 million in the five years since then? Does that not confirm that the Government may claim credit for the growth of the coal industry?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a pleasure to respond to such a positive question. Investment in the Scottish coalfield has increased over the period my hon. Friend mentioned by 43 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public anxiety that so many victimised Scottish miners will face another new year out of work? When the Minister visited Monktonhall—I think he was beneath my constituency briefly—was his attention drawn to the fact that Monktonhall is the gateway to the Musselburgh bay coalfield, which is as big as any new coalfield which may be available in England or elsewhere? When will the Government make it possible to develop that new coalfield?

Mr. Hunt: Individual investment decisions are for local management. I wish that more Labour Members would pay tribute to what has been a remarkable turn round in the Scottish coalfield since the end of the sad political strike led by Mr. Scargill, which resulted in the number of producing faces in Scotland decreasing from 31 to 19. Last week output had returned to its pre-strike level of 95,000 tonnes a week. That is a creditable achievement.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that no Labour Member will be reluctant to pay tribute to the activities of miners, whether in the Scottish or any other coalfield? Does he realise that he seems to move the goalposts every time he is asked a question about victimised miners? To


start with it was said that none had to be reinstated. Is he aware that it is time for a public inquiry into the management and administration of the NCB? Many victimised miners have not been reinstated because of victimisation or another reason? Is the Minister further aware that when he went beneath Monktonhall, he issued a press release and said how cynical Labour Members were about the future of Monktonhall? I hope that he was properly briefed, because if the peacock seam had never been developed, Monktonhall would have been in jeopardy.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member will be aware that the new face on which so much hope is being placed is to be started at the beginning of January and is in the Stairhead seam. Much is hoped of that development. No Conservative Member has said that no dismissed miner should get his job back. That is a matter on which individual management should decide. However, we should pay more attention to the real victimised miners. Fortunately, there are few now left, but there are still outrageous examples of intimidation of those men who, by their courage and determination, so impressed the country at the time.

Polkemmet Bing (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he has taken as a result of the Under-Secretary of State's visit on Tuesday 26 November to Polkemmet Bing, West Lothian.

Mr. David Hunt: Following my visit to Polkemmet Bing, I was assured by the NCB Scottish area officials and the environmental health officers from West Lothian district council, who attended with me, that everything possible was being done to overcome the serious situation.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister publicly, as I have privately, for making the detour there. Will he give this copper piping that I am holding, which I was given yesterday by a constituent, Mr. Alec Gibson, to his analysts, because if the sulphur emissions do that to copper, what do they do to the guts and intestines of my constituents? Will he provide resources for continuous 24-hour work to rectify this desperate problem? I saw the Bing yet again yesterday, and it is a serious health hazard.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the thanks that he has given so publicly. I checked with the local district council officials who attended with me whether the fumes were being carefully monitored so as to avoid any noxious fumes causing a deleterious impact on the local environment and people. I was assured that monitoring is taking place and is being carefully checked. As to 24-hour working, I understand that work cannot go any faster because of the safety considerations for the men who are trying to alleviate the problem. Naturally, I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's points with the coal board's chief scientist for Scotland.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of United Kingdom electricity generation comes from (a) nuclear, (b) oil, (c) coal and (d) hydro sources; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): For 1983 the

proportions were 17·6 per cent. for nuclear, 7·3 per cent. for oil, 72·9 per cent. for coal and 2·2 per cent. for hydro. The proportions in 1984, which were distorted by the strike in the coal industry, were 18·6 per cent. for nuclear, 32·4 per cent. for oil, 46·5 per cent. for coal and 2·5 per cent. for hydro.

Mr. Proctor: In view of the need to get a better balance in electricity generation, and of the need to increase its nuclear proportion, and in the light of the disturbing comments in the newspapers this morning, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the nuclear industry has a proven, successful and safe track record?

Mr. Goodlad: I cannot comment on the reports in the newspapers, but I am delighted to confirm that the safety record of the nuclear industry is, as my hon. Friend says, excellent.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment and anger in Scotland at the Government's half-hearted support for alternative sources of energy such as peat and wind, wave and hydro power, most of which have no adverse effects on the environment? Are the Government prepared to do something to investigate such alternative sources?

Mr. Goodlad: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is an important role for alternative sources of energy, which is why substantial amounts of money have been committed by the Government to research into these matters, which the advisory committee on research and development under the chairmanship of Sir Sam Edwards said were properly directed in the circumstances, and of the right amount.

Dr. Michael Clark: As many countries are pressing ahead strongly with nuclear energy, and as our neighbours across the Channel are already producing about 60 per cent. of their electricity from nuclear sources, does my hon. Friend agree that our proportion of electricity produced from nuclear energy, at about 17 or 18 per cent., is very disappointing? What measures has my hon. Friend in hand to increase the percentages?

Mr. Goodlad: The level of nuclear generation is as my hon. Friend stated it. When the first and second generations of AGRs are fully operational, the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear stations should be about 25 per cent. I welcome that development. After that, the outcome of the Sizewell inquiry is important, and upon that I cannot predict or comment.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister cannot shelter behind his earlier statement that he cannot comment upon newspaper reports. Surely it is in the interests of all that nuclear power should not be developed further until we can be assured that the nuclear industry can dispose safely of its waste. The Select Committee on the Environment, whose leaked report is referred to in The Times today, has made this point. It is completely irresponsible of the Government to go ahead with any such development until they can give that assurance to the public.

Mr. Goodlad: I cannot comment in advance upon a Select Committee report which I understand is expected in the new year. The decision to continue reprocessing was taken by Parliament in 1978 when the hon. Lady's party was in government. Having regard to the national interest


and the total fuel cycle, no insuperable environmental problems have subsequently arisen which might lead to a reconsideration of this decision.

Mr. Sackville: I recognise the potential benefits of cheaper coal through opencast mining, but will my hon. Friend say something about his Department's environmental policy on opencast mining, particularly in the context of my constituency where three separate operations are being applied for, which potentially could cause very severe damage to the environment?

Mr. Goodlad: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a very close interest in this subject as it affects his constituency. Environmental problems are primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment, but I know that the National Coal Board has them very much in mind.

Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little too optimistic about thermo-nuclear power generation? America, for example, will not commission any more nuclear power stations this century. As we always seem to fall in line with America on other matters, it is possible that we shall fall into line there? As for the hon. Gentleman's answer about alternative sources of energy, is he not being too optimistic about the spending on alternative sources of energy? It is about £14 million. We learnt on Friday from Hansard that we are spending, through Rubican and Young, £10·5 million on energy conservation advertising.

Mr. Goodlad: The Government attach great importance to energy conservation, as we do to alternative sources of energy. I said earlier that the advisory committee on research and development had said that the division of research funds for investigating alternative energy sources was appropriate. I am not responsible for what happens in the United States of America, but I have every confidence that the nuclear power programme will be as successful under this Government as it was under the hon. Gentleman's Government.

British Gas

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding the reaction to the detailed proposals for the privatisation of British Gas and the proposed regulation of the corporation in future.

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what further representations he has received on the proposed privatisation of British Gas.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I continue to receive representations from various organisations and individuals regarding our proposals for the privatisation of British Gas.

Mr. Dykes: In a sense, is not the word "privatisation" wrong? Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this corporation is truly publicly owned by members of the public owning shares in it, they will have a greater sense of ownership than they do with a remote state corporation that is run by faceless bureaucrats? They will be able to identify with the corporation, which has provided a better and better service in recent years and does not need to be oppressed by an excessive regulatory system.

Mr. Walker: I very much look forward to the employees, managers and customers of British Gas having a direct participation in this industry.

Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State recognise that many people are concerned about the future of gas showrooms after privatisation, particularly about the future of showrooms such as Padiham in my constituency? They provide an essential service by selling goods and providing a point at which to pay bills and report faults. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these showrooms are kept open after privatisation?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the existing management of British Gas has pursued a positive policy towards gas showrooms. The present management of British Gas will carry out the management of this industry after privatisation.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that since the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading debate a number of people who are very much concerned with the electricity industry are worried about the very considerable freedom that the gas industry will obtain after the Bill becomes law? They feel that it will work adversely against some of the controls which will still apply to the electricity industry. Has my right hon. Friend received such representations, and if so will he bear the matter in mind?

Mr. Walker: We shall certainly bear the matter in mind, but my hon. Friend has illustrated the fact that in certain markets where there has been fierce competition between gas, electricity and oil, that competition will continue, as it should in the interests of commerce and industry.

Mr. Mason: In view of the rumours that are rife in the coalfields about the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has no plans whatever of privatising any parts of that industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about gas.

Mr. Rowlands: In view of the widespread observations and criticism of the draft British Gas licence that the Secretary of State issued last week, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is a tentative first draft, that he has not entered into any firm understanding or agreements with British. Gas, and consequently that the licence can be the subject of substantial change?

Mr Walker: The joy of a parliamentary democracy and of entering a Committee stage is that everything is debatable. All I can say is that it is a very good draft, given that I drafted it myself.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is genuine concern about the Government's proposals for dealing with a monopoly, promoting competition and ensuring protection for the consumer? Will he make it clear that the Standing Committee, which meets tomorrow, will discuss these issues with a genuinely open mind and will be prepared to accept serious, constructive and even major suggestions to amend the Bill in order to achieve the kind of safeguard which at present it appears to lack?

Mr. Walker: I very much hope that the Standing Committee will be very open minded to all the arguments that are put. I am sure the Opposition are hoping that the


same will happen to their arguments. As for competition, I doubt whether anyone can say that this Bill is not far better than anything that has existed previously.

Coal Industry

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any proposals to change the pattern of working hours or to make any changes in legislation concerning health, safety and working conditions in the coal industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Secretary of State check with the NCB on the current state of play of the board's preparations to press for changes in the working structure of the industry, such as a 10-hour production shift? Does he accept that in the coalfield areas, such as my own, where unemployment is now rising to 30 per cent., the idea of a 10-hour shift will not receive an ecstatic welcome?

Mr. Walker: As I clearly said in my reply, I have received no proposals for change, and if I do I shall consider them carefully. If there were to be such proposals, I would expect the unions concerned fully to put their representations and viewpoints, which I would consider carefully.

Mr. Woodall: The right hon. Gentleman has already changed the pattern of working hours for my constituents, particularly at the Kinsley drift mine, which is threatened with closure even though it was opened only in 1979. If that pit is closed, that will change working hours. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about that?

Mr. Walker: We have agreed to modified procedures to consider any closures, which will be considered in the normal way.

Mr. Eadie: Although we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on proposed safety legislation or regulations, does he accept that some hon. Members have associations with the unions and that they have heard disturbing rumours? We take the view that safety in the mining industry is something about which we cannot be complacent and that constant vigilance is required. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep his eye firmly fixed on any proposal to amend regulations or legislation that could result in hazards for miners working underground.

Mr. Walker: I fully share the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the fact that in an industry such as mining the safety requirement provisions are vital, and I shall look at this in that light.

Energy Efficiency Programme

Mr. Nicholls: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many industrial and commercial schemes under the Government's energy efficiency programme are now approved or under way.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Energy Efficiency Office runs the energy efficiency demonstration scheme, the monitoring and targeting programme and the energy efficency survey scheme, and there are many other initiatives aimed at helping industry and commerce. I am delighted to say that all these schemes have reached record levels during the past year and the Government aim to build on this success during Energy Efficiency Year.

Mr. Nicholls: I thank my right hon. Friend for that clearly encouraging reply, but does he agree that there is a continuing need for private investment and practical involvement in Energy Efficiency Year if the aims of the campaign are to be achieved?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I very much share that view. I know of no other area of the British economy where it is possible for us to improve our economic performance by £7 billion a year. We are way behind in the international league, and I hope that as a result of next year's activities, the preparations for which have been encouraging, we shall substantially improve our position.

Mr. Douglas: As one of the criteria for assessing the benefits of the energy efficiency scheme is the price of fuels, what view does the right hon. Gentleman take of the oil price over the next two to three months?

Mr. Walker: I should be foolish if I took any view, but I shall always be interested in the speculation and views of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rowlands: One of the most important ways of improving energy efficiency is to improve insulation standards. Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment any proposals to put to the House about improving building regulations to cover insulation?

Mr. Walker: Building regulations can be examined, but existing insulation provisions ensure that it is very much to the benefit of any family to install basic draught proofing and insulation. I am delighted to say that we are doing much more to encourage a widespread voluntary movement to help those on lower incomes.

Coal Imports

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has been informed of the likely level of coal imports until the end of 1985 by the chairman of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Peter Walker: The chairman of the NCB is not responsible for coal imports. The increase in imports which has taken place this year has been influenced by contracts placed during the strike and by loss of confidence in the security of indigenous supplies. I hope that by improved performance we can return to the 1983 position, when Britain was a net exporter.

Mr. Eadie: We would expect the Secretary of State to be worried about coal imports, even this year, because of their effect on the prospects of the mining industry. Baron Marshall has made veiled threats today about coal imports in 1986, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there still persists, in circles of which we are both aware, the allegation that the NCB refused an order for £3 million of exports to Denmark? Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us about that allegation?

Mr. Walker: I have no details of anybody refusing an order at any sensible price. I am sure that the NCB would be eager to take advantage of such an opportunity, and the present chairman of the board has shown more interest than perhaps any of his predecessors in the possibilities for exports.
The main encouraging sign that we shall not need imports is that, for the first time in the history of the coal


industry, productivity last week totalled more than 3 tonnes per man shift. That encouraging trend and the improved efficiency of the industry will prevent the need for imports.

Mr. Rost: Now that the board needs to waste fewer of its resources on subsidising hopelessly high-cost coal production and can instead reallocate those resources to opening new, low-cost coalfields, will it not be a question of re-establishing our export orders, rather than having to import? British coal will be competitive again.

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that in the next few years, with the high investment and improved productivity that are taking place, Britain can have the most efficient and successful coal industry in western Europe by a long way. That will open a range of new opportunities, including export opportunities.

Mr. Ryman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman far too complacent about the present state of the coal industry? Bearing in mind the high level of imports and the new colliery review procedure, which has not got under way and is not understood by the Department of Energy, the NCB or the NUM, it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House when the new colliery review procedure, in so far as he knows anything about it, will begin its proceedings.

Mr. Walker: I hope that that will be done very soon. The finer points of detail were settled last week. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said in my original reply, namely that in 1983 Britain was a net exporter of coal. The effects of the strike and the insecurity and loss of supplies created the need for increased imports of coal. I hope that the performance of the industry will ensure that that need is eliminated.

Mr. Skinner: How can it make sense to read reports during the past few days of ships loaded with 110,000 tonnes of coal coming into the north-east at a time when Britain's non-oil trade deficit is well over £4,000 million?

Mr. Walker: I repeat that the strike, which was so enthusiastically supported by the hon. Gentleman, was the main reason for the large increase in imports.

British Gas

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements will be made for the pension fund of British Gas when it is privatised.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I understand from the corporation that there will be no change in the management of the funds or the benefits they provide.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for trade union leaders to stop indulging in scandalous scaremongering about this subject? Does he believe that that is in direct proportion to their fear that the privatisation of gas will be a roaring success?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Such talk about the pension fund is complete scaremongering. Those who indulge in it are trying to detract from the real benefits to the consumer, the employees and the management of that industry.

Mr. Eastham: If, as the Minister suggests, there will be real benefits after privatisation, can he tell the House whether gas will become cheaper?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to attend last week's debate. With the greater spur for efficiency that a privatised industry will undoubtedly create, there are no grounds for thinking that the price of gas will be higher than it would otherwise be.

Alternative Energy Sources

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about alternative sources of energy.

Mr. Goodlad: I am pleased to say that the Council of Ministers has, in recent months, agreed substantial new Community programmes on research and development and on the demonstration of new technologies in non-nuclear energy. A considerable proportion of the funds allocated to both programmes will be devoted to renewable energy sources, and my Department intends to encourage strong British participation.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend believe that the balance between Community and national research into alternative sources of energy is right? Should a larger proportion of it be undertaken on a Community basis?

Mr. Goodlad: The proportion is about right. Each member state has specific needs for which nationality funded research, development and demonstration is appropriate. Other matters of concern to the entire Community are suitable for Community action.

British Gas

Mr. Portillo: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish a draft licence under which British Gas will operate after privatisation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend will now be aware, the draft licence was made available to the House on Monday 9 December.

Mr. Portillo: I thank my right hon. Friend for making available the draft licence before the Second Reading debate last week. Has he had an opportunity to consider whether a specific duty in the Bill on the regulator to promote competition would help to strengthen the licence that he has produced?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend must recognise that, unlike other industries that supply services or materials in the domestic market, there is no scope for providing two separate pipelines to two houses in the same street. It was in recognition of that fact that we drafted the Bill and licence in the way that we did. However, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter in Committee.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the draft licence hardly enlightens the House, since it is almost incomprehensible? Does he also accept that although those who will serve on the Committee might be pleased that the licence was published last week, they will still wish to know how much the Government expect to make from the sale of the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand those simple mathematics. I look forward to debating the matter with him in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Rowlands: May we take it from the reply that the Secretary of State gave a few moments ago to our questions that this draft licence is a firm deal between the Secretary of State and Sir Denis Rooke and is not subject to any substantial change?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a draft licence, which was put before the house to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate it. The House will have full opportunities to consider this important matter.

NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.

Mr. Boyes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his monitoring of the funds available to National Coal Board (Enterprise) Limited.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Government will continue to monitor closely the funds available to NCB (Enterprise). By the end of November £4·4 million had been committed in support of 222 projects, and £600,000 had been committed to help more than 40 enterprise agencies to start up or to expand.

Mr. Boyes: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of money from NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. being used to study why industry does or does not go to former coal mining areas? If infrastructure problems were found, for example, would the right hon. Gentleman approve of road links with motorways being developed by NCB (Enterprise) money so that industries could see former mining villages as more attractive places in which to invest?

Mr. Walker: I understand that point. Obviously, expenditure on a road link would come from the designated programme of local authority and Government expenditure. There is nothing to stop NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. putting the importance of that development to those authorities. I know from my experience in the 1970s of the enormous benefit that was brought to the north-east by improvements in road communications.

Mr. Haynes: Why does the Secretary of State keep bragging at the Dispatch Box about the amount of money available for NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. with respect to pit closures? Is he aware that in my area, where there have been a number of pit closures, the people think that the right hon. Gentleman put the money in the safe, locked it up and purposely lost the key?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry that the Opposition are not delighted that, unlike what happened during the closures made by the Labour Government, a great deal of activity is now taking place.

Coal Industry

Mrs. Currie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what improvements there have been in the last year in productivity in the coal industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: Overall deep-mined revenue output reached an all-time record high of over 3 tonnes per man shift in the week ending 30 November. This was the fourth successive week in which the industry's overall productivity record had been broken.

Mrs. Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all the Front-Bench team on this astonishing record-breaking , activity in the coal industry. Is it not due substantially to the new incentive schemes and to much improved industrial relations in the industry, which gives the lie to everything that Arthur Scargill has been saying about the coal industry since he became president of the NUM?

Mr. Walker: Gratitude is certainly due to the men and management who have produced the coal. It is remarkable that in the last five years of the Labour Government the highest output figure was 2·28 tonnes per man shift. It is now 3 tonnes per man shift.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss industrial relations in the industry.

Mr. David Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the National Coal Board regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this increased production will not continue unless industrial relations are improved? Whatever the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) may have said, I do not recollect the industrial relations record being so low since nationalisation of the mining industry. Recently, the NCB chairman informed me that the position of sacked men differs from area to area, whether or not they have been made redundant. Men may have committed similar offences, but those who work in one area will get their jobs back, while those who work in another will not. Is that justice?

Mr. Hunt: I have been underground seven times in the past few months and been impressed by the way in which the men have come together after the strike. Continual talk of perpetuating divisions only damages a great industry that is shrugging off a disastrous political strike.

Mr. Dixon: Did the hon. Gentleman speak to the NCB chairman about the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme? I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 August. The reply, on 11 September, said that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing urgently with the matter. Many miners in my constituency are worried about their future payments being jeopardised because of problems relating to national insurance contributions during the strike. When will the hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State make a statement?

Mr. Hunt: The Government are carefully and urgently considering whether changes to the present legislation governing the redundant mineworkers' payments scheme would be appropriate given the failure of some mineworkers to make sufficient national insurance contributions during the strike to qualify for unemployment benefit during the benefit year 1986.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister has talked about the industry returning to normality in relation to consultation and conciliation. None of us would disagree about that. Does he think that it is helpful to return to consultation and conciliation when the chairman of the National Coal Board was responsible for holding up the new modified coal procedure closure agreement, as the NCB demanded that the unions should pay the full cost of any hearing relating


to that procedure? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a departure from the history of the industry and that it will not help to restore good industrial relations if the chairman of the NCB continues to conduct his business in that aggressive way?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should not put such a one-sided view. It is true that at a meeting on 10 December between the National Coal Board and the unions the costs of the final stage of the review procedure were allocated. The board will meet the cost of the secretariat and administrative services and pay half the cost of the fees payable to the members of the new body. That is a good result. I understand that it has been agreed that the new body will consider the proposed closure of Horden at its first inquiry in January, probably in the second week, with Bates' being considered in the next week.

Industrial Energy Prices

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy that industrial energy prices reflect variations in mean temperature.

Mr. Goodlad: No, Sir. Prices are a matter for the industries concerned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not industrial space heating grown into a major cost for industry? In so far as there is a clear variation in mean temperature levels between, for example, the north of England and Scotland and the south, is there not a justification for the Government to introduce an energy premium to help manufacturers in the north of England and Scotland who have to pay higher energy prices and who are now at a competitive disadvantage?

Mr. Goodlad: As I said, tariff structures and prices are a matter for the industries concerned. Tariffs for gas and electricity are structured to reflect the cost of supply, including, where appropriate, the main variations in costs caused by patterns of demand. It is unlikely that relating prices to temperatures would result in more accurate representation of costs, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairmen of the Electricity Council and of the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, although industrial costs are not directly related to mean temperature, there is a component, and that in Scotland and the north of England there is real concern that there is not a fair opportunity even to compete on energy prices, given that the Scottish electricity boards do not negotiate industrial prices with their customers because the base price is less than that of the electricity boards in England and Wales? Does the Minister accept that all electricity boards should negotiate fair prices with their industrial customers, and that it should not be confined to the industries operating in England and Wales?

Mr. Goodlad: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the chairmen of the utilities concerned.

Oil Reserves

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of total recoverable

reserves of oil in the United Kingdom land and waters; how much of this was discovered in the last five years: and how much oil has been recovered in the same period.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The latest estimate of total recoverable reserves of oil on the United Kingdom continental shelf is 2,000 million tonnes, of which 80 million tonnes were discovered in the past five years. Five hundred and fourteen million tonnes of oil were recovered over the same period.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend disappointed that only 80 million tonnes have been discovered in the past five years? In view of that, do the Government accept that our reserves will now fast run out, or is it still hoped that there are plenty of other reserves waiting to be discovered under our land or in our waters?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Our reserves will not fast run out because the reserve figure is based on reserves that are proven and probable. It excludes possible reserves, of which there are large quantities, and also much greater reserves that are still to be found. It is significant that in the past year, as in the first year of exploration for oil and gas, we are still making one discovery for every five wells drilled.

Coal Miners (National Insurance)

Mr. Allen McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement regarding the position of mineworkers who did not pay national insurance contributions during the last mining dispute.

Mr. Peter Walker: As I told the House on 25 November, I will make a statement as soon as conclusions have been reached on the details of any new scheme to cover the financial year 1986–87. In the meantime, I emphasise that the board is maintaining its policy of not making compulsorily redundant any man who wishes to stay in the industry.

Mr. McKay: It is disgraceful that the Government have not yet made a statement about the plight of miners who did not pay national insurance contributions during the dispute. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the safety net under which those miners have been working will end on 6 January, before the House returns after Christmas, and that if they continue working and suffer serious injury or illness they will not receive welfare benefit?

Mr. Walker: I recognise the importance of the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is a complicated and difficult situation, but I hope that a statement will be made shortly.

Margam Mine

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if, when he next meets the chairman of the National Coal Board, he will discuss the current position regarding the proposed Margam deep mine project in south Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: At my right hon. Friend's meetings with the chairman of the NCB, all aspects of the coal industry are discussed, including proposals for new mines. My right hon. Friend has not yet received proposals for approval of the Margam project.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that 11,000 jobs have been lost in the coal industry in south Wales since 1979 and that only 700 alternative jobs have been offered by NCB (Enterprise) Ltd.? Does he agree that there has been a great deal of misinformation about the Margam project? During the strike the NCB said that investment would go ahead, but that statement was totally untrue. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how that deception occurred?

Mr. Hunt: No such deception has occurred. Planning permission has been granted by West Glamorgan county council for the Margam mine. However, as the hon. Lady will appreciate, decisions on the development of new mines and the extension of existing mines are matters for the National Coal Board. I have not yet received proposals for approval of the project at Margam or for the development at Carway Fawr, and I understand that it has not yet been decided whether it will be financially viable to proceed with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Research and Secretarial Allowances

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has had from hon. Members on research and secretarial allowances.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have answered a number of parliamentary questions and have discussed the matter with an all-party delegation.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Leader of the House agree that if there were improved secretarial and research allowances, some of his hon. Friends might not need to supplement their incomes by becoming consultants to companies such as those involved in the Channel tunnel development?

Mr. Biffen: I see no relationship between the two points. The hon. Lady often makes a reasonable point, but she is spoiling that this afternoon.

Members' Interests

Mr. Winnick: asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations he has received about the extent of the requirement for hon. Members to disclose their interests; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: I have answered a number of parliamentary questions on this subject. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is to be a debate tomorrow on the recent report by the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what was shown on the television programme "Newsnight" last week is bound to strengthen the view that the Register of Members' Interests should contain at least some details of the outside financial sources of hon. Members? Should not the register be strengthened by making it an obligation for all hon. Members to fill in the details? I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that there is also the question whether hon. Members who have financial links should be able to vote?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises many points that are either in the substantive motion or in the amendments to it for tomorrow's debate. I do not think that I should anticipate what might be said tomorrow.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not unreasonable for hon. Members to be sponsored by trade unions? Has he any idea how many hon. Members are sponsored by trade unions? If it were necessary to oblige Members not to vote because they were sponsored by a business interest, would that not also apply to those sponsored by trade unions?

Mr. Biffen: Again, my hon. Friend is enticing me to anticipate what I might say tomorrow evening. Wherever an interest exists, I hope that it will be registered.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an absolute assurance that there will be a free vote tomorrow night?

Mr. Biffen: That is not my responsibility, but I expect that the House will behave as it always does on such occasions.

Computers

Mr. Boyes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will report on the progress in providing computer facilities for hon. Members in the House.

Mr. Biffen: Since 1983 hon. Members have been able to claim the costs of computers and word processors against the office, secretarial and research allowance. I understand that about a hundred Members have already taken advantage of that facility in order to purchase such equipment.

Mr. Boyes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is not a sufficiently satisfactory approach to the matter? Should not all hon. Members who wish to have computers be issued with computers linked to a central resource mechanism, such as the Library? Is not the Government's attitude to modern technology so backward and sloppy that if the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends were running a secondhand shop it would go bust in a fortnight?

Mr. Biffen: The principle of an office allowance being available for the purchase of such equipment is important. It is reviewed every four years. It would be unwise to suppose that just because some hon. Members find that facility of use, all hon. Members must or should.

Mr. Skinner: If computers are brought in, will the Leader of the House guarantee that they will not be linked to the telephones, because we have enough trouble as it is?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a categorical answer this afternoon, but I shall view the matter with the same sympathy as I extend to most of the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Scientific Civil Service

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what assessment he makes of current morale in the scientific Civic Service.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The scientific Civil Service is undergoing profound changes which we believe are essential, and


some anxieties have arisen from this, but I should like to commend the positive way in which scientists—and all civil servants—have responded to change and to acknowledge the valuable and increasingly efficient service that they provide.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that members of the Standing Committee on the Agriculture Bill—his own colleagues as much as mine—have had a great deal of contact with staff at agricultural research stations and with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and others who represent them? Is he further aware that the picture that we have, if not one of chaos, is one of great and demoralising uncertainty? Are those people to be left to the MAFF accountants, or has the Minister some role in protecting people who have been good and imaginative servants of this country?

Mr. Luce: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about the standard of service provided by those scientists. This is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but rationalisation is currently taking place in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which I believe affects the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I assure the hon. Gentleman that everything possible is being done at this stage to find alternative jobs for all the people working at Lasswade.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the low morale among the distinguished scientists of the British Geological Survey at Keyworth, many of whom are my constituents? Will he consider whether they should remain under the control of the Natural Environment Research Council, as they believe that in that body science is decreasing but administration is increasing?

Mr. Luce: I believe that the Civil Service has been losing some good scientists. For that reason, we have introduced a number of changes, including an additional pay allowance for some civil servants of that type so as to give priority to recruitment and retention.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I appreciate the Minister's respect for the civil servants in his charge. Will he ensure that they receive the same respect from other members of the Government, notably the Prime Minister, who does not have a very high regard for civil servants? Does he agree that he has a great responsibility to ensure that the demoralisation of the Civil Service that has occurred in the past few years is ended with respect to pay as well as to other matters?

Mr. Luce: The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the extent of the change in the Civil Service that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has led and with which all Ministers have co-operated—indeed, advocated—fully. The change has led to vastly improved efficiency through the financial management initiative and various other improvements and efficiency schemes, the results of which are acknowledged by all of my colleagues.

Work Loads

Dr. Michael Clark: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will indicate the change in work load for civil servants between June 1983 and June 1985 and the corresponding increase in productivity between the same two dates.

Mr. Luce: The annual reports by the Treasury to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on Civil Service manpower reductions, copies of which are in the Library, provide some indication of the effects on Civil Service manpower levels of changes in work load. These show a saving of nearly 20,000 posts between 1 April 1983 and 1 April 1985 from improved efficiency and more streamlined working.

Dr. Clark: I welcome the increased productivity of Civil Servants. Is it due in part to performance appraisal? Do civil servants in the Department of Education and Science participate in such performance appraisals? Is that not an example to teachers who reject appraisal?

Mr. Luce: I cannot answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the appraisal of teachers, but in the Civil Service we are putting ever more emphasis on performance assessment and on individuals' achievement in the job. The result is much more effective management, and it provides a good example.

Mr. Home Robertson: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said about the work load of civil servants in agricultural research and development, does the Minister agree that there has been a 41 per cent. cut in funding of the service in Scotland at the very time when there is an unprecedented need for research into alternative techniques, and that the result is impossible strain on people working in the Department?

Mr. Luce: The details of that matter are for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there is careful monitoring of the work load on civil servants in all Departments. When a special case is made out—as, for example, with Customs and Excise or the Inland Revenue—adjustments can be made.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the burden on DHSS and Department of Employment staff, especially in the coalfields, leads one to the view that the Government might be asking too much from conscientious officials?

Mr. Luce: I have no doubt about the remarkable job being done by a pared down Civil Service under considerable pressures because of the efficiency changes. There is constant monitoring of the efforts made by civil servants and their work load, and adjustments can be made.

Mr. Skinner: Can the Minister explain this bizarre contradiction? He mentioned a reduction of 20,000 in Civil Service manpower. It cost £1·2 million to run 10 Downing street when the Labour Prime Minister left, but it costs £3·8 million in 1984–85? Does he agree that there are more civil servants in 10 Downing street now—some with beards and some probably economists—in direct contradiction of everything for which the Prime Minister stands for everybody else? There is no rate capping at 10 Downing street.

Mr. Luce: There are civil servants at 10 Downing street, just as there are everywhere else, and they are of the highest calibre. We have rightly reduced Civil Service manpower by 20 per cent. in the past six years. We have asked the Civil Service to become more efficient and more streamlined. It has become more professional.

Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that if DHSS staff are under pressure—as they are—we need a simpler system? We look forward to hearing a statement on a simpler system later today.

Mr. Luce: That is why we emphasised the need for more efficient systems and a more streamlined service. That is what we are working towards.

Dr. McDonald: The Minister's reply to that last question will not do. Is he aware that the Chief Auditor's report shows that one in three supplementary benefit claims is mistakenly administered because of enormous pressures on DHSS staff? Is he further aware that the White Paper, which is shortly to be announced, will put

enormous pressure on DHSS staff? It will not reduce their work load it will increase it, partly because of administration of what was called the social fund.
Will the Minister consult his colleagues to ensure that more DHSS staff are recruited to cope with the enormous increase in their work? Will he also ensure that the gap is not made up by increasing temporary staff, in the light of the forthcoming White Paper?

Mr. Luce: All those questions should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We continually monitor the work load of the Civil Service and take that into account when examining the size of each Department.

Social Security White Paper

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Social Security White Paper which I am publishing today.
In June the Government published a Green Paper which set out in detail the case for change, the Government's objectives for social security and our proposals for achieving them. That Green Paper marked a further stage in the process of review and public consultation which began two years ago in the autumn of 1983.
The Government have four main aims. We want to see a simpler system of social security which provides a better service to the public. By common consent, social security at present is too complex. There are some 30 benefits, each with separate and frequently conflicting rules of entitlement, and supplementary benefit alone requires almost 40,000 staff to administer it.
We want to see more people looking forward to greater independence in retirement. Only half the work force currently have occupational pensions of their own. Our plans extend not only to occupational pensions but, for the first time, provide a new right to personal pensions.
We want a system which is financially secure. As the Government Actuary's report, published with the White Paper, demonstrates, the future cost of the state earnings-related pension scheme will grow substantially—at the same time as the ratio of contributors to pensioners worsens. The Government believe that this problem must be tackled now.
Above all, we want to see more effective help going to those who most need it. More than half of those living on the lowest incomes today are in families with children. This includes both families where the parents are unemployed and low-income working families. Added to this people can still find themselves with less income in work than if they were unemployed. Others can find that a pay rise in work can actually make them worse off. The Government believe that urgent action is necessary to tackle these problems.
One of the major priorities of the Government's proposals is to make better provision for low-income working families with children. Accordingly, we propose to abolish the present family income supplement and to introduce a new benefit, family credit.
Family credit is designed to ensure that families with children will be better off in work. It will be based on take-home or net pay—rather than gross earnings, as with family income supplement—so that the worst effects of the poverty trap are eliminated.
We expect that, compared with family income supplement, family credit will give help to an extra 200,000 families. In other words, twice as many low income families with children will benefit from the new scheme. Family credit will be paid through the pay packet, but it should be emphasised that child benefit will be paid in addition and that that payment will go, as now, direct to the mothers.
We also intend to bring extra support to families who are not in work. This will be achieved through the new income support scheme. A family premium—a special higher level of benefit—will be paid on top of the basic

income support rate and on top of the rates for individual children. One of the groups who will most gain from this change will be unemployed families with children.
The income support scheme will replace supplementary benefit. The regular extra payments now made on the basis of detailed individual assessment will be absorbed into the main rates of benefit. As well as a premium for families with children, there will be an additional premium for lone parents and premiums for pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled. At the same time, the capital rule, which at present is an inflexible £3,000 cut off, will be substantiall eased, and we will also ease the earnings rules for lone parents, disabled people and long-term unemployed families.
While the broad pattern of income support will remain as set out in the Green Paper, we have modified our proposals in the light of consultations in two significant ways.
First, the income support rate will still be based on age divisions at 18 and 25 for single people. However, in order to help young families with children in particular, we now intend to have the same rate for all couples over 18.
Secondly, we intend to increase the help for families with more than one disabled child. The Green Paper proposed a double family premium where there was one disabled child or more. We have now decided to pay the extra premium for each disabled child in a household.
This last change will reinforce the special attention which we give to disabled people in our proposals. They will benefit from the premium in income support and from a higher earnings disregard. Overall, disabled people on low incomes will benefit significantly from the proposals.
However well designed the income support scheme may be, it cannot anticipate every special or emergency need. These needs will be dealt with by the social fund.
Instead of the present small universal maternity and death grants—which have both remained at the same value for over 15 years—proper help will be available from the fund to all low income families, not just those on supplementary benefit. The grant for funeral expenses will ensure that the full cost of the funeral can be met, and it is planned that the maternity grant should be set at about £75. Grants will also be given for community care purposes; for example, to help someone leaving a long-stay hospital. In addition, the fund will provide loans to help claimants cope with items other than normal weekly needs.
The main structure of our housing benefit proposals has been acknowledged as an important simplification of the scheme. Treating employed and unemployed people alike, and so getting rid of two separate systems in housing benefit, has been particularly welcomed.
We shall go ahead with this, but I intend, in response to consultations, to make two significant changes to the Green Paper proposals. First, I recognise the anxieties expressed about the effect of a single taper for rent and rates on owner-occupiers, particularly pensioners. I also recognise the concern of local authorities that a single taper would create administrative difficulties for them. We shall therefore keep separate tapers for rent and rates, and this will still be a substantial simplification compared with the six tapers in the present system.
Secondly, although the general power to run local housing benefit schemes will be ended, local authorities will retain their power to grant extra benefit to individual


claimants in exceptional circumstances. I have also decided that they should retain their power to give special treatment to war pensioners.
As we made clear in the Green Paper, we believe that the basis on which help is provided with rates needs to be changed. At present, around 7 million householders receive help with some or all of their rates bill, and up to 3 million householders pay no rates. We stand by the principle that everyone should make a contribution towards the cost of his local services. The White Paper therefore reaffirms the proposal that everyone should pay at least 20 per cent. of his rates, but the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be bringing forward shortly on the reform of local taxation may affect the way this contribution is made.
The Government will be carrying forward the proposals for directing widows' benefits to those who need them most and for making maternity allowance more flexible and more closely related to recent work. The new lump sum payment of £1,000 to widows will be tax-free and will be ignored when considering help with funeral expenses. The White Paper also proposes that maternity allowances, like statutory sick pay, should be paid through employers, and a consultation document will be published shortly on this.
On timing, we shall move to the first April uprating in 1987 and at that time we shall introduce other changes like statutory maternity allowance and the new system of help with maternity and funeral costs. The main structural changes to income-related benefits and the other elements of the social fund will be introduced in April 1988. This recognises the arguments of employers and local authorities that the timetable must allow them to make proper preparations.
As far as income-related benefits are concerned, a technical annex is published with the White Paper. The figures show the possible distributional effects of the changes, but these can be no more than illustrative. The actual position at the time of change will depend, among other things, on the exact benefit rates decided for April 1988, and the illustrative figures take no account of any changes resulting from the reform of rates.
As far as pensions policy is concerned, the Government Actuary's report, published with the White Paper, shows that if no action is taken, total pension costs will increase from under £15·5 billion to nearly £49 billion a year provided that the basic pension is uprated by prices. If, as some urge, the basic pension is uprated in line with earnings, the total pension cost increases to nearly £73 billion, which would require a national insurance contribution of 27·5 per cent. The cost of SERPS alone will increase from barely £200 million today to £25·5 billion.
The Government cannot ignore the vast pension bill which is being handed down to our children. In the consultation a number of important organisations recognised that case but argued that, rather than completely replacing SERPS, the costs could be reduced by modifying its provisions. In testing whether a policy of modifying SERPS would be acceptable, the Government have two major objectives. First, we want to see the future cost of SERPS substantially reduced. Secondly, and even more fundamentally, we want to see many more people

with their own pension. It is on the basis that both of those objectives can be achieved that the Government are prepared to change the proposals from those put forward in the Green Paper.
The Government propose to modify the scheme so that costs in the next century can be afforded. As with the Green Paper proposals, the Government recognise the particular needs of those nearest retirement. The SERPS changes will not affect anyone retiring this century, nor anyone widowed this century. There will also be a transitional period as the new scheme comes into effect fully in 2010. The basic pension is entirely unaffected by the proposals, and we will continue fully to protect its value.
The changes to SERPS are that occupational schemes contracted out of the state scheme should be responsible for inflation-proofing guaranteed minimum pensions in payment up to 3 per cent. a year; SERPS pensions should be based on a lifetime's earnings, not on the best 20 years as now, but special protection will be built in for women who have breaks in work to bring up families and for those who become disabled and people looking after them; SERPS pensions should be calculated on 20 per cent. of earnings rather than 25 per cent.; and widows and widowers over 65 should be allowed to inherit half their spouse's SERPS rights, rather than the full amount as now.
However, policy on SERPS is only part of the Government's pensions strategy. Our central aim is to provide many more people with their own pension. The White Paper puts forward a six point plan to achieve that. First, a special incentive will be given to encourage the setting up a new occupational pension schemes. That will consist of a reduction, or rebate, on national insurance contributions. An extra 2 per cent. rebate will be added to the existing rebate, making a total incentive of almost 8 per cent. That special rebate will last for five years.
Secondly, for the first time, every employee will be able to take a personal pension, whether or not his employer runs an occupational scheme. The holder of a personal pension will also receive the special national insurance incentive and his contributions will qualify for tax relief.
Thirdly, for the first time, employers will be able to contract out of the state scheme by guaranteeing a level of contribution to an occupational scheme—rather than accept the unlimited liability of promising a "final salary" pension. Those new arrangements will also open the way for more industry-wide schemes.
Fourthly, building societies, banks and unit trusts will be able to provide personal pension savings schemes, as well as group schemes.
Fifthly, all members of occupational pension schemes will in future have the right to pay additional voluntary contributions in order to boost their income in retirement.
Sixthly, people with personal pensions will be fully covered by the new investor protection arrangements to be made for all financial services.
The changes build on top of the reforms introduced by the Social Security Act 1985 which protect the rights of early leavers. The White Paper proposes that that protection will be extended to all members of schemes leaving after two years rather than five years, as now. Anyone changing jobs will be able to transfer all his rights into a personal pension.
The effect of the White Paper proposals will be to direct substantially more help to low income families with


children, and to provide more help for disabled people on low incomes. We will take new steps to increase the spread of occupational pensions and give everyone the right to have a personal pension. We will provide a simpler and more effective benefit structure, and have now embarked on the biggest computer project of its kind in Western Europe.
Following the White Paper, the Government will introduce comprehensive legislation early in the new year. The aim will be to achieve a modern social security system directing help where that help is needed.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, following the humiliating rebuff that he received from the Green Paper consultation, we welcome the fact that the Government have been forced, by near unanimous opposition, to back off from a few of their most damaging original proposals? Is he also aware that 1·75 million more people will lose from this revised package than will gain and that it is much less about reform than about cuts totalling around £750 million? Is he aware that the changes proposed today can be expected to have little impact on the unprecedented 80 to 90 per cent. opposition registered during the consultation period and the near-unanimous hostility of the CBI, the pension and insurance industries, the churches, the women's institutes, the poverty lobby and the Law Society?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after six months of fudging on the figures and denial of information we know is available, the nation is still not being told in this White Paper the total size of the cuts in this package, or even the actual new benefit rates? Is he aware that to supply illustrative benefit rates only is wholly unacceptable when the Government have no commitment to maintain them, and when all the new benefit levels could, and should, have been set out at 1985 cash levels for the purposes of genuine comparison with the present position? Is he aware that even on his own illustrative figures, 3,800,000 households will lose benefit under these proposals, including 2·25 million pensioners? I do not know why the Secretary of State is shaking his head, because this is shown by his figures.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly 500,000 will lose more than £5 a week and that 1·25 million households, including nearly 500,000 pensioners, will lose more than £3 a week? Is he aware that while we welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to back down from abolishing SERPS by the implacable hostility of everyone except the Institute of Directors and the Monday Club, who are the Secretary of State's sole admirers, we utterly condemn the proposed emasculation of SERPS? That will chop £12 billion, which is almost 50 per cent., off the value of pensions in the year 2033, with accumulative figures in the years up to that date. It will throw millions of elderly people back into means-tested poverty, and it is wholly unnecessary when the Government's pensions Actuary has pronounced that the funding of the existing SERPS scheme is perfectly sound.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the abolition of the best-20-years rule will gravely disadvantage all those who are prevented from achieving a full working life—the long-term unemployed, mothers, the disabled, and the millions who care for the long-term sick and elderly? Is he further aware that his proposal to calculate SERPS pensions as only 20 per cent. of earnings will leave

millions of low-paid workers with inadequate pensions? Is he aware that his proposal to cut widow's benefit in half is harsh and unfair, when in a few months' time, the Chancellor will be handing out far bigger sums in tax reliefs to much richer sections of the population?
On housing benefit, while the Secretary of State has been only too anxious to make expedient concessions to pensioner owner occupiers who are Tory voters, is it not sheer political prejudice that he has at the same time actually worsened, compared with the Green Paper, the position of occupational pensioners who rent accomrnodation, by raising the rent taper from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent.? How can he possibly justify requiring all households, including pensioners and the poorest on supplementary benefit, to pay 20 per cent. towards their rates bills? Is he aware that this is the first time ever that any Government, by their own intervention, have forced millions of claimants below the poverty line? Is he aware that this makes nonsense of his claim to be targeting more help on the very poorest? It shows that he is targeting cuts on the very poorest.
On the new so-called income support scheme, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government still intend to refuse to cover mortgage interest payments for families on the dole, which means that there will be much less money for food and other essentials and which in many cases will almost certainly lead to eviction and homelessness.
On the so-called social fund—one of the most objectionable elements of the whole package—why has the Secretary of State, who claims to listen to public opinion, taken no notice of the intense and unanimous opposition to the replacement of grants by means tests and to the halving of the budget for essential household items, which will mean that hundreds of thousands of pensioners and poor families will go without? Why is he insisting upon pushing families below the poverty line—that is what will happen—by recovering social fund payments through deductions from future supplementary benefit?
On family credit, why has the Secretary of State actually increased the taper to 70 per cent. compared with only 50 per cent. for family income supplement, which was bad enough, when this will greatly worsen the poverty trap? Why has he taken no account of the unanimous opposition to paying this new benefit to the man and not the woman with the main responsibility for family care?
Does it not expose the politics of this Government when their much trumpeted review of the welfare state ends with benefit cuts of £750 million for the most needy., when at the same time this same Government have handed out £2 billion to the richest 2 per cent. of the population on over £30,000 a year? Indeed, what justification is there for cuts in national insurance benefits when people have earned their entitlement to full benefit and have a right to it and when any private insurance company which reneged on its obligations—as the Secretary of State is doing—would be taken to court and charged with bad faith and breach of contract?
There is no political mandate for this package. Not one of the Secretary of State's proposals commands national majority support. When this is put to the British people, as it now must be at the next general election, it will be one of the central reasons why this Government are swept from power.

Mr. Fowler: That is a typically foolish response from the hon. Gentleman. It shows that he has mostly not even listened to the statement, and when he has listened to it he has not understood it. The hon. Gentleman has made a series of assertions, most of which are completely inaccurate. Let me try to take the hon. Gentleman through his proposals. I make absolutely no apology for taking consultation seriously. That is why we embarked upon the consultation exercise in 1983 and published a Green Paper. As for cost, the purpose of the exercise is to make better use of resources.
The hon. Gentleman said that the figures are only illustrative. They can, of course, be only illustrative. It is impossible to work out the effect of changes following the uprating in April 1988. One cannot work out the changes. For example, without rates reform one is unable to show the effect upon single pensioners. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) may find that amusing, but rates reform clearly has an effect and impact upon single pensioners. The Green Paper on that will be issued next month, so the hon. Gentleman has only to wait.
As for benefit areas, these proposals will provide more help—not less—for 200,000 low-income families with children and for disabled people. They provide an extension of occupational pensions, a right to personal pensions and a simplification of the system. In the benefit areas themselves, the support for low-income working families with children will increase family credit by an estimated additional £200 million a year at this stage. Changes from supplementary benefit to income support are not intended to reduce help, and there will be no cash losers as a result of that change. the White Paper makes it clear that we expect spending on housing benefits to be reduced by about £450 million, as I said previously, but that must be compared with the areas where increases will take place.
As to modification of SERPS, the hon. Member must look at the Government Actuary's figures at the end of the White Paper. They show that there will be a very substantial increase in the cost of SERPS. On the basis of the hon. Gentleman's own policies—with an earnings uprating in basic pensions—the cost will go up to £73 billion, and that will mean a national insurance contribution of 27·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to fight the election on issues of this kind. I welcome that challenge, but he will have to produce a policy, and at present the Labour party has none.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House and the country that this scheme will meet the four-point "window test"—first, that all genuinely needy people will be helped; secondly, that the scheme will not actively discourage persons from standing on their own feet or taking jobs where and when they may be available; thirdly, that the scheme will neither bankrupt the country nor be the despair of future taxpayers; and, forthly, that the desperately needed streamlining of the social security system is being accomplished?

Mr. Fowler: I can satisfy my hon. Friend on those points. The proposals themselves will provide more help, particularly for low-income families and the disabled. If the Leader of the Opposition understood my point, I am sure he would also support the fact that we are tackling not

only the unemployment trap but the poverty trap. That is precisely the point that my hon. Friend made. Above all, we are seeking to introduce a modern social security system, which means that the system itself must be simplified.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that the alliance believes that this White Paper contains the same intrinsic flaws as the Green Paper? It does nothing constructive to integrate the taxation system with the benefits system; it does nothing to establish modern, minimum standards-of-living requirements for those on benefit; and it does nothing to remedy the financial plight of elderly pensioners who are relying on supplementary pensions. The White Paper raises the additional spectre of the nightmare of constitutional clashes with the courts by investing in the Secretary of State massive devolved powers that he will arrogate to himself in the way that made Mr. Corton a household name in recent weeks.
Secondly, the lack of an independent tribunal system for the social fund is guaranteed to bring the right hon. Gentleman into conflict with the courts.
I appeal to the Secretary of State: he has announced that some of the changes are not to be introduced until 1988, so he has time. Why does he not use that time to have all-party talks to try to get a consensus on tax, pensions and benefits? I warn him that if the mechanism for paying benefits is not agreed and is not likely to survive an election, we are on course for financial uncertainty and administrative chaos.

Mr. Fowler: I am always an optimist, but, with the best will in the world, it seems to me that all-party talks involving the hon. Member for Oldham, West are unlikely to provide a consensus on social security policy.
I share the aspirations of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on tax and social security. Family credit is an important step in that direction and it will provide more support for the families about which he and I are concerned.
There will be full and comprehensive legislation on our proposals. No previous Government have spent more time consulting the public and seeking to involve the public and organisations in the making of policy. This exercise started in 1983. It is now time not for more consultation, but for action.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people throughout the country will welcome the assistance to be given to low-income families and that any a fair-minded person must agree that that as SERPS is not funded—it is a pay-as-you-go scheme—it is ludicrous to think that future taxpayers could suffer the burden if SERPS were not altered. By what amount does my right hon. Friend think that the projected £25 billion cost of SERFS will be reduced by his proposals?
With personal pensions for employees, will there be any change in the national insurance contributions of self-employed people who take out pensions?

Mr. Fowler: There will be no change for the self-employed.
My hon. Friend is right to say that SERFS is a pay-as-you-go scheme and not a funded insurance scheme. The result of the changes that I am proposing will be that by the year 2033 the cost will have come down from a


projected £25 billion to about £13 billion. We shall have reduced the emerging costs by about half. We shall also have protected fully the interests of those who are nearer retirement. That is why I said that those who are retiring in this century will not be affected by our changes.

Mrs. Renée Short: The Secretary of State will recall that the Select Committee on Social Services examined the proposals in his Green paper. It is usual for the Chairman of the Select Committee to have a note from the Secretary of State before statements are made, but I have not had such a note.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the number of staff involved in operating the present system. What changes will he made? Will the number of staff be increased or reduced?
Housing benefit and supplementary benefit were introduced by this Government; they are now to be changed radically. What guarantee do we have that the right hon. Gentleman has got it right this time? In view of the criticisms made by many of the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee, I think that there will be great anxiety about the Government's proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman said that family credit will be provided for the very poor, and he referred to 200,000 families. What about the rest of the very poor? There are more than 3 million unemployed people, many of whom have families. What will be done to help them?
The Secretary of State said that local authorities will be able to give extra housing benefit in certain circumstances. Will he provide the resources for local authorities to give that help? If so, how much will he provide?
I remind the Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is the Chairman of the Select Committee, but it is unfair to treat this as a debate.

Mrs. Short: I have only one more sentence. Mr. Speaker. I remind the Secretary of State that whatever consensus about pensions, housing benefits and the rest existed previously, he has now destroyed it.

Mr. Fowler: Local authorities have always had to provide the resources for local schemes, and that will continue to be the case.
I apologise if no note has reached the hon. Lady as Chairman of the Select Committee. It is on its way to her and I hope that it will arrive in due course.
With the simplification of the system and the computer strategy, there will ultimately be a substantial reduction in staff requirements.
I remind the hon. Lady that the Government have examined an income support scheme in more detail than have any previous Government. The last major review of this sort, back in the 1940s, left that area to one side. We have tried to distinguish between income support, which is the overwhelming support, and the residual support for special needs and such matters, which will be taken up through the social fund.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: As an erstwhile critic of the abolition of SERPS, perhaps I may be forgiven for expressing particular pleasure at the content of one part of my right hon. Friend's statement. Is it not clear from what he has said that, by the various inducements that are to be built up to persuade people to move to occupational pension schemes or individual

personal pensions, the time will come in the not-too-distant future when the need for SERPS will have receded to the point where it is no more than a residual scheme? In retrospect, is that not far better than abolition?
As my right hon. Friend has a highly saleable proposition, will he undertake, with, I hope, the support of all his ministerial colleagues, the marketing of the scheme? Some of us feel that it is a step forward in our aim of achieving a property-owning democracy which could be equal to the sale of council houses—and we all know how successful that policy has been.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge and independence on pensions policy I very much respect. My hon. Friend is right. Our proposals will, I hope, mean that it will be the exception for those reaching retirement age not to have a pension of their own. The Government and I are entirely in favour of extending occupational and personal pensions to the maximum number of people. That is what the public want and that is what the Government are about.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I questioned him on his Green Paper, I asked him about the effects of his proposals on the number of poor. I return to that question: if the White Paper is implemented, will there be more poor people or fewer?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House his estimate of the savings or, as we would say, the cuts in public expenditure over the next two years leading up to the general election?

Mr. Fowler: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there wilt be fewer in terms of the poor, and that is the whole purpose behind the proposals that we are setting out. The hon. Gentleman will see from the White Paper that we seek to direct extra help to low-income families—a subject on which the hon. Gentleman has special expertise and knowledge—as well as to disabled people on low incomes. Regarding public spending, as I have said before, the purpose of the exercise is to make better use of resources. The major savings on SERPS are not immediate but will come in the next century. In the immediate future, I repeat that there will be increases in public spending for family credit. There will be equality for income support and supplementary benefit and spending on housing benefit will be reduced.

Mr. Roy Galley: The flexibility that my right hon. Friend showed during the consultation process will be appreciated and welcomed throughout the country. Despite the rumblings from Opposition Members, will he confirm that the majority of low-income families with children will benefit from the proposals? Will he give more details about the modifications to the family credit proposals and will he tell us the facts on which is based the calculation that 200,000 more families will benefit under family credit?

Mr. Fowler: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. In the inquiry leading up to the Green Paper the problems of the poorest—those with the lowest incomes—were clearly defined. During the past 20 years the number of low-income families with children has increased. On the basis of that diagnosis we sought to develop a new policy. Family income supplement was an attempt to deal with the


circumstances of the early 1970s, but it did not work and led to the unemployment and poverty traps. That is why we have developed family credit. We have made several changes to family credit such as the change from 13 weeks to five weeks, which will ease the administration of the scheme.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: In view of the difficulties experienced by the disabled housewife and mother, will the Secretary of State reconsider his position on the treatment of the old HNCIB?

Mr. Fowler: I believe that that is dealt with by the severe disablement allowance. However, in addition to our proposals we are carrying out a survey on the needs of disabled people to help Governments to form realistic and new policies for the disabled. I believe that that will be welcomed.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the help with funeral costs available to the low-paid will be in the form of grants rather than loans? Will he also confirm that in setting the premiums for elderly people the personal heating allowance will be taken into account?

Mr. Fowler: I give assurances on both points. The financial resources for heating additions will be in the income support rates. Funeral expenses will be in the form of grants, not loans.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Why does the hon. Gentleman not come clean and admit that the damaging implications of these changes, without proper disclosure of figures, are not likely to be appreciable until after the next general election, which is now nearly certain to happen before April 1987?

Mr. Fowler: I have produced a technical annex that is full of illustrative figures. However, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that with the best will in the world it is impossible to show with those figures what the exact benefits will be in April 1987.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on BBC radio this morning the Opposition spokesman alleged categorically that the longer-term funding of the present system was no problem, even without increased taxation? Will my right hon. Friend give the lie to that allegation?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for Oldham, West constantly quotes the Government Actuary in support of his case. The hon. Gentleman should read with more care what the Government Actuary said, not only in the current report attached to the White Paper, which I accept the hon. Gentleman did not have the benefit of seeing before he spoke this morning, but in several reports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, SERPS will increase the value of pensions. There will be an increase of about £4 million for pensioners, and the hon. Gentleman should know that the ratio of contributors to the pensions will worsen. The public should understand that under Labour's policy, with the earnings uprating, the total cost of pensions would rise to £73 billion which would mean a national insurance contribution of 27·5 per cent. That is what the Labour party propose.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must take into account the fact that this is a Private Member's day and that there is a further statement to follow. I will allow questions to continue for another 10 minutes, and if hon. Members put their questions briefly, I hope that most will be able to contribute.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, even on his inadequate illustrative figures, 7 million mothers and 12 million children will be worse off because of changes in child benefit, 3·8 million people, including 2 million pensioners, will be worse off because of changes in housing and supplementary benefit, and half the population will be worse off because because of his scheme? Will he tell us the truth? As a result of the White Paper, which brings a black Christmas for claimants, by how much does he intend to cut supplementary benefit before 1988 and by how much does he plan to cut the social security budget after 1988?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member knows that that is not the case. His questions show all the signs of a supplementary question rehearsed before he had the opportunity to read the White Paper.

Mr. Roger Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals on personal pensions will be warmly welcomed by many people who wish to stay in occupational pension schemes but who wish to make additional provision through personal pensions? Will he confirm that the Government will consider the revenue restrictions on additional voluntary contributions so that the full amount—up to 15 per cent. of salary—will will apply to personal pensions contributions.

Mr. Fowler: Yes. In the legislation to follow we seek to provide everyone with the right to a personal pension irrespective of whether they are in a scheme at present. That is an important step forward. Those people will benefit from the special national insurance incentive that I have announced and they will benefit from tax relief. Those points will be welcomed by industry and the public.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to representations to preserve the special position of war widows.

Mr. Fowler: We listened to representations, and we believe that it is right to make an exception in the case of war pensions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State say whether it is the Government's intention to remove the right of students to claim supplementary benefit during the long vacation and their right to claim housing benefit? Does he agree that that would cause them considerable hardship? Will he confirm that it is not the Government's intention to enact the proposals through secondary legislation but that the Government will wait for statutory powers?

Mr. Fowler: As the Green Paper made clear, we want a change in the supplementary benefit arrangements for students. We would prefer a system whereby the support for students goes through grants, not supplementary benefit and housing benefit. We shall try to develop that principle. The hon. Gentleman will see when it is introduced that the legislation is comprehensive and that many of the fears that have been whipped up about it are unfounded.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who genuinely seek to meet real need effectively with resources will welcome his announcement that maternity and death grants will be made available at realistic levels to those in need, whether in or out of work?

Mr. Fowler: That is right. The maternity grant and the death grant have been unchanged for between 15 and 20 years. That position cannot remotely be defended. We are trying to give realistic and proper help to those who need it for funeral expenses and maternity expenses.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Secretary of State concede that the sort of social security system that will result from his announcement will not be essentially fairer but will be essentially meaner? Does he accept that that will happen because he is trying to redistribute income in our society within definitions of income bands that have been drawn tightly between what he regards as the deserving and the undeserving poor? Do his illustrative figures not show that 2 million pensioners will lose at least £1 a week and that more than 10 per cent. of them will lose more than £5 a week?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is probably quoting from the second set of tables. The basis for those tables is the position before the reform has any effect. It requires a little imagination to understand that there will be an impact on single pensioners. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the system will be less fair. When he has had more time to study the White Paper, he will accept that it will direct help more effectively to those people, notably low-income families, who by any definition are most in need.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: In welcoming extra help for the disabled, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify when families with more than one disabled child can expect to benefit from the proposals?

Mr. Fowler: That part of the proposals will come into effect in April 1988, with the majority of the proposals that we shall introduce and with the new pension arrangements.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that the changes that he has proposed for SERPS and the guaranteed occupational pension schemes will mean a turning back of the clock for manual workers and a reduction in pension rights? Is not his estimate of a 27·5 per cent. contribution rate blatant scaremongering?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept that it is blatant scaremongering. I have tried to quote the estimate put forward by the Government Actuary, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West did on the radio this morning. I have not simply pulled the figure out of the air. Does the hon. Gentleman share the aspirations of the Government to extend pensions for individuals through occupational

schemes and through personal pensions? The inquiry showed clearly that the majority of people want their own pensions, and that is what we shall try to provide.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept that the Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am the longest-serving Conservative Member, is grateful for the fact that he has listened to the views expressed by the thousands of people who communicated with him and to the views of the Select Committee? Will he also accept that his views on SERPS are welcome and the fact that he has amended his original views is widely appreciated? Although I do not wish to be controversial in what I say now, will he tell the House whether he is intending to be a Scrooge or a Father Christmas in his announcement? I believe that he intends to be a Father Christmas.

Mr. Fowler: I cannot win with a comparison of that sort. I am trying to be fair, I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Social Services, which we took fully into account.

Mr. Max Madden: However hard the chairman of the Conservative party tries to dress up the White Paper, will not the British people soon come to see it for what it is: a charter for more cuts, more means testing and more misery? Does the Secretary of State understand that the absence of the Prime Minister and most of his Cabinet colleagues this afternoon shows that they do not regard the White Paper as a new Beveridge plan, but are ashamed of it and do not wish to be associated with it publicly?

Mr. Fowler: I do not see many prominent figures on the Opposition Front Bench. For example, I have no idea who the man with the beard is. The hon. Gentleman had better be a little more cautious in his statements. I am content to allow the public to judge the proposals. They will judge them side by side with the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the abolition of mortgage tax relief. We look forward to the further development of those proposals.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend remind us of who is paying for all this? In contrast to the comments made by the Opposition about losers, does he agree that since everyone is a taxpayer—whether through income tax, tax on savings, or VAT—we shall all gain from an improved, streamlined social security system?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. It is also worth remembering that we are talking about a budget of more than £41 billion a year. That is an increase of about 30 per cent. in real terms since 1979. More than half of the increase represents a real increase in benefits.

Westland

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Leon Brittan): With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement.
For some months now Westland plc has been in serious financial difficulties and has been seeking an association with an external partner or partners. Negotiations with United Technologies commenced in September 1985 and led to a proposal from Fiat and United Technologies.
At the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the Government agreed that my right hon. Friend should explore the possibility of an alternative association with Aerospatiale, MBB and Agusta becoming available to Westland. An initial proposal emerged and, while it was being produced, the national armaments directors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy made a recommendation that certain helicopter requirements should in future be met solely from aircraft designed and built in Europe. For the United Kingdom, this recommendation represented a substantial extension to the Government's policy agreed with our European allies in 1978 and of our general approach to defence procurement as set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985".
The existence of the national armaments directors' recommendation was regarded by Westland as a major obstacle to the United Technologies-Fiat option, which it at all times preferred. In view of the urgent necessity for a deal to be concluded quickly, the Government decided that from 13 December they would not be bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation unless Westland had by then received a firm offer from the three European companies, which the board would recommend to its shareholders. The Government's intention was to give time for the completion of a firm offer by the European companies to Westland, but to remove any politically imposed obstacle facing Westland if such an offer were not made in time or was unacceptable to Westland.
At the end of last week British Aerospace announced that it was prepared to provide a quarter of the funds offered by the European consortium. The Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy also agreed, but on an entirely provisional basis, that if the European offer were accepted they would meet their requirements in each of the three main helicopter classes by a single collaborative solution.
Westland plc announced on Friday evening that agreement had been reached in principle whereby United Technologies and Fiat will between them take a minority shareholding in Westland. The view of the board of Westland was that the European offer which was finally received was neither firm enough nor attractive enough for the board to be able to recommend it to its shareholders. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government are not bound by the national armaments directors' recommendation. Full details of the United Technologies-Fiat agreement and of a capital reorganisation of Westland will be announced by the company shortly. As part of the proposed arrangements, Westland will take a licence from the Sikorsky division of United Technologies to manufacture, develop and sell the Blackhawk helicopter.
United Technologies was at all times fully aware that there was currently no Ministry of Defence requirement and no provision in the defence budget to buy the Blackhawk helicopter or any other comparable helicopter. Westland has welcomed the agreement as a private sector solution to its present financial difficulties which offers firm prospects of long-term viability and continues the close co-operation between Westland and Sikorsky, which has existed for several decades, and which led to the production under licence of the successful Wessex, Whirlwind and Sea King helicopters. Westland intends to continue with the Anglo-Italian EH101 programme, and to continue to take part in feasibility studies on a developed version of the Al29 and on the NH90. United Technologies has assured Westland that it will continue to maintain a helicopter design and development capability in the United Kingdom.
The Government have ensured that Westland had an alternative European-based offer to consider, but, as a private sector company, it is for Westland to decide the best route to follow to secure its future and that of its employees.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Smith.

Mr. John Smith: rose

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Afterwards.

Mr. Skinner: It is very important.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure it is.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State for Defence make his statment, because there are two conflicting views?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. John Smith.

Mr. John Smith: Surely the Secretary of State is not seeking to pretend that there have not been fundamental disagreements, going right to the heart of Government policy, between himself and the Secretary of State for Defence, which have been advertised in the extraordinary public wrangling in recent days? Is there still any concept of collective responsibility in the Government?
Why did the Government refuse to help Westland many months ago when it asked for help? Would it not have been wise to support Britain's only helicopter manufacturer to keep a vital stake in the markets for our industry? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that Britain accepted a recommendation by the national armaments directors only a short time ago, only to have that undertaking unilaterally withdrawn today, apparently only because Westland's board wants to accept the United States' offer? Should our defence policy be decided by the interests of a private sector company?
Is it not revealing that the Secretary of State for Defence—perhaps belatedly, but certainly vigorously—has been fighting for the concept of national interest, while the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been defending the ideologically motivated non-interventionist stance of his party? Is it not the case that, as usually happens when the Prime Minister intervenes, party ideology has once again triumphed over the national interest?
Can the Secretary of State say why we should not believe the Secretary of State for Defence when he tells


us that the United States deal will lead to a high-tech British company being reduced to metal bashing, and when he tells us that the deal may prejudice future European defence co-operation, especially on major helicopter projects? Is it not clear that United Technologies wants to find a way into the European market and that, instead of fighting for European industry, the Government are helping to open up American access to it? Does the research and design independence of Westland rest only on the assurance given by United Technologies? Is it not sad that the Government should assist Westland's chairman to find—I quote his recent statement—
a private sector solution to a private sector problem
when what is desperately needed is a national solution to a national problem?
Will the Secretary of State intervene to defer a decision for at least a few weeks so that the future of a vital British industry is decided in an atmosphere of calm deliberation, with all the relevant information available, and with proper attention being paid to the national defence and manufacturing interests? Surely, when a great deal of Government money has already been invested in this company, and when thousands of jobs are possibly at stake—let alone the independence of a major British industrial interest—it is not enough for the Government to wash their hands of responsibility and leave a matter of such national consequence to a shareholders' meeting next Thursday, which will take place in the shadow of the threat of liquidation.

Mr. Brittan: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I assure him that my statement was made on behalf of the Government as a whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) alleged that the Government had refused help for Westland. The Government have taken the view that it would be far preferable for Westland to be able to find a solution to the problems that it faces without recourse to the taxpayer. That seems to be a reasonable position to take. It is clear that Westland has been able to do so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is misinformed on the question of the joint recommendation of the national armaments directors, and I am glad to be able to correct him. He was wrong in saying that Britain had accepted the recommendation. The recommendation was placed on the table and was never agreed to by the United Kingdom Government. The fact that it was on the table was, in effect, a pistol at the head of Sikorsky and Westland, preventing them from pursuing their preferred solution. None the less, the Government believed that the inquiries which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was pursuing with a view to obtaining an offer from European countries were such that they should be pursued to the point at which a decision could be taken freely by the company.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is wholly misconceived in his suggestion that ideology is involved. It is not. There is concern for the welfare of Westland and the jobs of the people employed there. The right hon. Gentleman is also wholly misconceived and is picking up a cheap cliché in suggesting that the role of Westland, if the proposed deal

goes through, is as he says. United Technologies has assured Westland that it will continue to maintain a helicopter design and development capability in the United Kingdom. What is more, Westland, which has responsibility in difficult circumstances and is under extreme pressure of time, for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not allow at all, believes that the maintenance of such a capability would have been less certain if it had accepted the European consortium's proposals.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a need to convey to the armaments directors of Europe an understanding that Westland is a European helicopter company? Does he also accept that nobody in Europe, particularly the chairman of Aerospatiale, has a right to say that such a company would stop Westland getting contracts in NATO? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to everybody in Europe that, with Sikorsky in the arrangement, it will be the same as it has always been, and that the content of Westland helicopters will remain 90 per cent. European?

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a gross over-simplification to present the choice as being between Europe and the United States. Westland is deeply involved, and will continue to be involved, with Europe. That has been made abundantly clear. The United States companies are also involved with Europe. As for Aerospatiale, the House will understand why Westland views the remark that has been quoted from the head of that company as having all the objectivity of a remark made by someone who had been doing his best to undermine and supplant the Westland Indian deal.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement will be welcomed. Bearing in mind that the Government's indecision has been al the heart of many of Westland' s long-term problems, what steps is the right hon. and learned Gentleman taking to make sure that the Cabinet is together on the issue and that Westland is not being treated as a ministerial plaything'? Will he confirm that Westland's relationship with Sikorsky is not new, but stretches back over 40 years of fruitful co-operation? Will he also confirm that the EH101 participative deal is not threatened by the statement, but is perhaps enhanced by it? Will he give a clear undertaking to the House that Westland will not be penalised over the deal because it has put some individual Cabinet Ministers' noses out of joint?

Mr. Brittan: Of course the Government would not behave in the irresponsible way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be the duty of all members of the Government to ensure that orders were placed for helicopters that were needed, in the right way, irrespective of any such unworthy considerations. The Government are committed to the EH101. Westland is also committed to it, and United Technologies has said that it will not interfere in any way and will assist in its promotion in north America. The president of Agusta, with which EH101 is being developed, confirmed on Saturday that his company will continue to co-operate with Westland on the programme.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is right in the general points that he made. Four of Westland's


most successful projects since the war have been developments of original Sikorsky designs—Dragonfly, Wessex, Whirlwind, Sea King and its Army version, the Commando. Westland has sold over 1,200 of those aircraft. Its association with Sikorsky goes back to 1947. The three collaborative projects undertaken with Aerospatiale have been less successful.

Sir Antony Buck: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great admiration on both sides of the House for Sir John Cuckney, the head of the firm that is now Westland? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that to many of us a more European-oriented solution might have been preferable? Will he assure us that, whether or not that be so, the best helicopters, for both maritime and land use, will be available to our armed forces?

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the latter is the case. The Government thought it right that the possibility of a European offer should be explored. That is why, at a meeting in my Department with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I readily agreed that he should explore that possibility. It was explored and put forward. The company took the view that it was not sufficiently firm or attractive for it to abandon its previously preferred option. It is worth pointing out that the European possibility arose late in the day, at a time when the company was under great financial pressure.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not a strange constitutional position when on Sunday we hear the Secretary of State for Defence giving one view on the radio, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry giving a different view in the House the following day? As someone who has served in the Royal Air Force, I believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was speaking on behalf of the RAF and not on behalf of monetary or ideological considerations.

Mr. Brittan: The House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and his constitutional analysis. The statement that I am making is on behalf of the Government.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that for months many of us have been trying to remind Her Majesty's Government of the imminent problems of Westland, and in particular of the necessity of meeting air staff target 404 of the Royal Air Force for medium-lift helicopters with a Westland aeroplane? Was it not unrealistic of the Ministry of Defence to imagine that at the llth hour it could impose a shotgun European marriage on Westland, when a European long-term helicopter strategy, though necessary, is bound to take a long time to concert?

Mr. Brittan: I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Is the Secretary of State aware that while he is saying that he is speaking for the Government, the faces on the Government Front Bench show a different view? That shows the disunity of the Government on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about what the chairman of Westland has said, but how far have the employees and the trade unions

been consulted? If that is done, I think he will find that they have a different opinion and that they would support the Secretary of State for Defence for a European solution, because that offers a better long-term future than the American proposal. Is he not aware—perhaps it is because of his lack of knowledge of industry—that the Government are once more selling out for short-term proposals, rather than guaranteeing a long-term future for the British helicopter industry?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I would hesitate to arbitrate between him and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but I suspect that when it comes to what the people of Yeovil who work for the firm would prefer, the hon. Member for Yeovil may know more about it.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the thousands of people who work for Westland in and around the west country are much less interested in which is the best solution than in the fact that the company has been saved from receivership? Will he use his influence to ensure that the otherwise friendly relations between Westland and its biggest customer, the Ministry of Defence, are restored and perpetuated?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said and wish to use my influence in that direction.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is right? For 18 months Government and Opposition Back Benchers, the all-party group, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) have been pleading that action should be taken on the matter. If, for once, the Ministers had listened to the Back Benchers, they would not have been embarrassed, as they are today. Aviation is far too important to the economy of the country for it to be the subject of bickering and delay by Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Brittan: The attempt to make a party issue of the matter by the Opposition Front Bench is also perhaps a reflection of real concern. The question of proper defence procurement is not easy, and it is unfair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the hon. Gentleman to castigate him in that way, when he has made major efforts and been extremely successful in securing value for money for the armed forces over an emormous range of activities. The House and the country owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Michael Mates: In the light of the new situation, what is the position on the licence arrangements to build the Blackhawk helicopter already entered into with Shorts? Does that arrangement still exist, and if so, what will be the effect on any arrangements made with Westland in the future?

Mr. Brittan: The arrangement envisaged with Shorts was entirely dependent upon the possibility of the Blackhawk being selected by the Ministry of Defence for AST 404. That has not happened, so that arrangement does not stand.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 19 November I was taken round Westland at Yeovil, as many of my colleagues


have been. Those of us from other parts of the country will recognise the seriousness and size of the problem. May I repeat the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? What assurance is there that Sikorsky will keep the high technology and research in Britain? May we have a factual answer?

Mr. Brittan: I have already given the assurance that the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and stated clearly what United Technologies has said. That is absolutely clear. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he is talking about alternatives, he might like to ask what assurances he thinks the French, Germans and Italians, all of whom have been regarded as competitors to Westland, would give in the same direction.

Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the American connection with Westland would be a way for the Rolls-Royce turbo meca 322 helicopter engine, currently being developed on the borders of my constituency, to gain access to the large and profitable north American market?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that that is a most attractive prospect.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not ashamed of himself? How can he conclude that the British technology will remain in this country? Does he not realise that Sikorsky could eat Westland for breakfast? That would not be the case with the other Europeans, because none of them is big enough. Surely the Government should have been pushing ahead with our European partners? An example is Agusta, with the EH101, which has been on the go for some time. Who are the patriots in this country? Do they sit on the Government side, or on the Opposition side of the House?

Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have overlooked the answer that I gave to the question on the EH101, in which I made it clear that that was going ahead, and that the president of Agusta had said that it was. The NH90 development is still at an early stage. There is no doubt that it will continue to go ahead with United Technologies.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the facts about Westland were known months ago? If, at that time, the Europeans, who are now bidding so furiously to get in on the act, had been in, we might have seen a viable alternative. My constituents and Westland have a bird in the hand, and it is worth two in the bush.

Mr. Brittan: I can well understand how my hon. Friend and his constituents feel about the bird in the hand. It is difficult to speculate about what might have happened in other circumstances some months ago, but the plain fact is that the European consortium did not exist, showed no signs of existing and had no interest in the matter until a few weeks ago.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Secretary of State join in the congratulations of most of us on the Opposition Benches to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for trying to get the European option?

Mr. Brittan: I very happily join in the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman, with motives that one might

suspect, invites me to confirm. As I said earlier, it was I who readily agreed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence should see whether a European solution was possible. In a short time my right hon. Friend succeeded in bringing together to a remarkable extent an offer which, in the end, the company did not feel was sufficiently firm or attractive. The Government's desire that it should be pursued is evidenced by the fact that it was the Government's decision that my right hon. Friend should pursue it. He achieved a considerable success in a short time, in making it possible for Westland to consider that option.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I understand the complexity of the issue and want to consider carefully what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but does he accept that GEC, as well as British Aerospace, made an offer to bring forward the European proposal? That matter causes some of us concern, as the offer was apparently rejected within 24 hours. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the matter should be looked at with care?

Mr. Brittan: With regard to the speed with which the matter was considered, the broad outline of the proposals being put forward by the Europeans was clear long before last Friday, so it is not entirely accurate to regard the proposal as having been rejected within 24 hours. The proposals put forward on behalf of the European consortium last Friday did not include any participation whatsoever by GEC. The interest on the part of GEC has emerged since then. It is fair to say that although GEC is entitled, even at this late hour, to say what it wishes, at no stage during the well known and well publicised difficulties of Westland did GEC lift a finger to help.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does the Department of Trade and Industry assume responsibility for the company when it is so reliant on defence procurement? Most of the order book is supplied by the Secretary of State for Defence, in orders that his Department gives to the company. Surely the Ministry of Defence should have been the lead Department in taking decisions, if necessary, on the future of the company. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise that his was the junior role?

Mr. Brittan: The decisions that I have announced were taken collectively. As the hon. Gentleman is interested in responsibility, he will know perfectly well that whereas the Ministry of Defence is a major customer, the Department of Trade and Industry is the sponsoring Department for the aerospace industry. There is nothing new in that.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many with an interest in defence will feel that, for whatever reason, we have ended up with the third best solution? Is it not pretty obvious that the European defence and aviation industries must work out their common aims and co-operate to try to achieve them? I fear that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement is steaming slowly in the wrong direction.

Mr. Brittan: I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for European co-operation. A British company with European competitors was faced with the prospect of extinction, and it had an imperative duty to prevent that. It is because of


the shared concern about the merits of European co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State examined whether an alternative was available in the time. The company has taken the view that it was not.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Why was it left to the Secretary of State for Defence to make the suggestion and then pursue it on behalf of the Government if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department is the sponsoring Department not only for the aerospace industry but for British industry as a whole? Why did his Department not come in earlier and explore the possibilities of an alternative to the present solution? What did his Department do during the months when the firm was known to be in difficulties?

Mr. Brittan: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that there was on the table, at an advanced stage of negotiation, a deal that would rescue the company. My Department was intimately involved in removing some of the obstacles that stood in the way of such a rescue. That is the correct role of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: While the European approach undoubtedly offers the best political solution to the problem, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the plight of Westland has been known for many months and that there have been negotiations since June this year to find a partner? The company can hardly be blamed if it has picked up a real offer from the table. It ill behoves the managing director of the company in the United Kingdom that is richest in cash to say now that the deal is not in the interests of the United Kingdom when, with all the cash at its disposal, it could have come in much earlier. At the moment, the plan is for United Technologies and Fiat to take over a 30 per cent. shareholding. What would be Her Majesty's Government's view if that shareholding were to be increased to a majority shareholding?

Mr. Brittan: That is a hypothetical question, which I cannot be expected to answer. I can well understand my hon. Friend's comments about the other matters, although I would not wish to join in them.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Great confusion has been caused today by the Secretary of State's statement and by many of the reports that we have been reading about his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that several months ago a deputation met the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement to talk about the serious situation in the industry. He said that there were difficulties sorting out the type of aircraft that was required, yet we learned this weekend that the Ministry of Defence was thinking about placing an order for six helicopters. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Ministry can now place an order for six helicopters? If he cannot, will he ask his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement? What guarantees can be given to the work force, which has had little say in all the paper transactions? Will the Minister go to the trade unions and give them some assurances?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will know that his last points are matters for the company. He mentioned the proposal that six extra Sea Kings should be purchased by

the United Kingdom Government. That order would have been financed out of savings obtained by merging the Al29 mark II and PAH2 light attack helicopters. Such a rationalisation may not be achieved, but, if it can be, Westland's link with Sikorsky and Fiat would not prevent it.

Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for at last calling a Member who has many constituents working at Westlands. Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that what matters most is the future of Westlands and the jobs that will be kept there? One of the factors in favour of the Sikorsky deal is the future production of the Blackhawk helicopter. There are rumours in my constituency that Blackhawk production at Yeovil will be below 50 per cent. of total production. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm this rumour?

Mr. Brittan: I cannot confirm that. I can confirm, however, that it is the intention of United Technologies that there should be substantial manufacture of Blackhawk in the United Kingdom. One reason for Westland preferring the Sikorsky deal is that the company compared that firm commitment by United Technologies with an interim provision from the European companies simply for extended subcontracting work in the United Kingdom. There would be more substantial production work with Blackhawk. The possibility of a European helicopter being built in the United Kingdom in the more distant future is very doubtful.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: If there has been a great national interest at stake for the last few months, Westland is the victim, not the villain of the piece, as it has been seeking calm. Indeed, Westland was told by the Government and by other companies in this country to do what happens to turkeys at Christmas. It would have been better if two distinguished members of the Government, one involved in defence and the other in trade and industry, had got together beforehand to discover what was best for Westland. Would it not have been better to launch Westland on the free market, which I believe is an important aspect of the Government's policy?

Mr. Brittan: The matter is being left to the free market. The solution being put forward by Westland involves the private sector rescue of a private sector company, at no cost to the Exchequer. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to explore the possibility of another offer being put to Westland and to allow the company to choose which is best. That is what the Government have done, and that is in line with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).

Mr. Robert Jackson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend worried about the knock-on effects of the decision, and the way in which it has been presented, on any future European defence collaboration?

Mr. Brittan: That is a matter which the Government must consider. The statement made by the president of Agusta about continued collaboration on the EH101 gives one reason to believe that some things said in the heat of the moment by certain of our European competitors might assume different proportions when matters continue in a more leisurely way.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether United Technologies


has agreed to limit its stake in Westlands to 29·9 per cent., or whether that might be a prelude to a full bid in due course? Does he think that it is important that Britain's only helicopter manufacturer should not come under foreign control, with a consequential loss of business in avionics and associated weapons systems?

Mr. Brittan: I am advised that the proposals of Sikorsky and Fiat—one must not forget that two companies are involved, not one—is for an initial 29·9 per cent. stake, with an option to acquire further shares to bring the holding up to 35 or 40 per cent., but not to exceed that figure. The full details for which the Opposition are thirsting will be made public by the company in a few days.
My hon. Friend will be aware that a vast amount of avionics is currently produced by United Kingdom manufacturers for American concerns, and avionics will not be put at risk in the way that my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the control of Westland will remain in the United Kingdom and that there have been no discussions to suggest that it should move elsewhere at a later stage?

Mr. Brittan: That is correct.

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that during all the exchanges that have taken place, it has been perfectly clear that the Secretary of State for Defence has disagreed with practically everything that he has been telling us? The Secretary of State for Defence has been more concerned with national issues than has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has been willing to see British interests given over to the United States.

Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that it is Westland's view that the proposals which it is now commending to its shareholders are in the company's best interests.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House why the Government rejected approaches from Westland earlier this year? He has not answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). Why must the Government have a public debate between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? When a foreign power takes an interest in a vital, strategic industry in this country the opportunities for exports are reduced, and that must be against the national interests.

Mr. Brittan: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on his general proposition. Westland's view that its prospects for exports are enhanced is a reasonable one, but the House will have to wait to see what happens.
The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is perfectly clear. The Government did not favour a solution to Westland's problem which involved the taxpayer paying for the company.

Mr. John Smith: Why has the Secretary of State waited until almost the last question of the term to reveal the important information that US Technologies has an option to increase its holding to 40 per cent.?

Mr. Brittan: United Technologies.

Mr. Smith: If the Secretary of State is going to make a fuss about getting the tiny details right, perhaps he could have helped us by supplying the information at the outset. The Secretary of State tried to tell the House that there was a small minority interest being taken, but hon. Members have now extracted from him, as one would take a bad tooth from a bad mouth, the fact that the holding could increase to 40 per cent. That is a shocking disclosure, because the Secretary of State knows that 40 per cent. equals control of the company.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have made a worse point, as I did not mention any figures at all until I was asked to do so. I made it clear at that stage that there are many other details in relation to the proposal which will be disclosed by the company in a matter of days. That is an entirely reasonable course of action.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that throughout the whole series of questions and answers the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not even consult the Secretary of State for Defence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if that is true it is nothing to do with me.

Mr. Skinner: I know that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me?

Mr. Skinner: I was just giving a little background, Mr. Speaker. The point of order is quite clear. It is very rare that Ministers come along giving opposite points of view, but in this case it is clear that they do not even speak to each other. As there are clearly two points of view, should not the Secretary of State for Defence have the chance to put the alternative point of view?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Private Notice Questions

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your advice. I had understood that a private notice question was a private matter and not for public dissemination. Was it in order for the Labour Front Bench spokesman to make it known in the press last Saturday that he intended to put down a private notice question, and for the fact and perhaps some of the text of the question to be revealed in the Press Association tapes this morning?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He is still wet behind the ears.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order is for me, not for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
I frequently read in the press at weekends that a question is to be asked about a particular matter in Parliament the following week. I think that that is perfectly in order, but it is not in order to refer to a private notice question which may or may not have been sent in.

Ministerial Statements

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have your advice on what seems to be a genuine constitutional predicament?
With regard to today's statement, there are two Departments with clear responsibilities. Until now, all statements on the subject in question have been made by the Secretary of State for Defence. Today, however, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has told the House that he has taken over responsibility at the Dispatch Box as the head of the sponsoring Department, but that any questions related to defence arising from his statement have to be referred to the Secretary of State for Defence. As the Secretary of State for Defence, who has dismissed the agreement as "metal-bashing", has had to sit beside his colleague in silence and humiliation and listen to an announcement that an agreement by national armaments directors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order for me?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been told that national armaments directors of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy have agreed that certain helicopter requirements should in future be met solely from aircraft designed and built in Europe. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that that agreement
represented a substantial extension to the Government's policy … and of our general approach to defence procurement as set out in the 1985 Statement on the Defence Estimates".
As that agreement has apparently been set aside purely at the request of the Westland board, would it not be appropriate now to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence aspects of the matter?

Mr. Speaker: It might have been more appropriate if the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) had been called last from the Front Bench. None of that is a matter for me.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The matter that I wish to raise is not a matter of Members' interests, although it may at first seem to be so. It relates to the rights of Members to table questions. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have an interest in defence contracts, and

particularly in excess profits by defence contractors. Accordingly, I attempted to table a series of questions this morning. One of them was—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that if he goes to the Table Office and seeks advice it is not in order for him to raise in the Chamber with me the questions that he raised there.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker—I have also taken advice on this—you have ultimate responsibility for the decisions of the Table Office.

Mr. Speaker: I do not answer for these matters in the Chamber. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise matters of this kind with me, he should do so in the normal way. I was not present at the discussions and I cannot possibly say what went on. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I can tell him that I now know that he spent some time in the Table Office this morning discussing whether he could put down certain questions, but that is all that I know.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There are many precedents in the House of Members coming to the Chamber to press the case for questions which they were refused the right to table, by the Table Office. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the implications of certain questions that I was not allowed to table. My point of order is not long. I wonder whether you might care—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly expert in procedural matters. He should know that the matter that he raises is firmly pointed to in "Erskine May" as follows:
When a question has been refused and the Member concerned wishes to make representations to the Speaker on the matter, the practice is for these to be made privately to the Speaker and not raised by way of a point of order in the House.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,

That the matter of the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council concerning higher education in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Scientific Research

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges that the prosperity of Britain in a competitive world depends upon keeping pace with technology in a variety of fields, that the achievement of this goal requires the injection of greater funds into the scientific infrastructure comprising universities, research councils, laboratories and polytechnics, that a closer interface between universities and industries is fundamental to the evolution of a future industrial strategy, and that international collaboration for major research projects is essential to further the development of expensive basic research; that, while welcoming the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in associating Britain, France and Italy in the ISIS neutron spallation source facilities, Eureka and other ventures, nevertheless would regret any steps taken to lower the United Kingdom subscription to the high energy particle physics facility CERN; acknowledges that only the maintenance of an environment for successful research in the United Kingdom will prevent the migration abroad of the ablest scientists and innovators; considers that a mechanism must be found for harnessing for civil use the fruits of defence research; and concludes that, while the private sector should be encouraged to invest more funds in research and development, there remains a continuing need for further public funds to maintain the thrust of basic, strategic and applied research in a number of fields such as microelectronics, biotechnology, information technology and robotics, because to a very large extent the employment and standard of living of tomorrow depends upon the research undertaken by the community today.
It is becoming customary for the House, even after two major statements, further to curtail the time left to debate a private Member's motion. On this occasion, the time has been cut down to one hour and 45 minutes. I hope that when the subject of this debate is discussed in the future adequate time will be provided by the Government to cover the points that Members would have liked to raise today.
Paragraph 26 of the Select Committee report on the future of the science budget shows the comparative performance of various industrial states in relation to Government funding for research and development. The performance of the United Kingdom is not encouraging. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide clarification today. In volume II, paragraph 40, Sir David Phillips stated in evidence that he was instituting a review of the way in which particular branches of science are funded in this country and in Germany, France, Netherlands, the United States and Japan. This review … is being conducted by the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University".
Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us the outcome of that review?
International figures reflect not just inadequate funding but a shortage of scientific staff. I illustrate the point by giving the number of scientists and engineers in research and development in four major countries. In the United States, the figure is 660,700 or 0·62 per cent. of the labour force. In Japan it is 463,062 or 0·76 per cent. of the labour force. In West Germany it is 121,978 or 0·41 per cent. of the labour force. In the United Kingdom, it is even lower, at 86,500 or 0·33 per cent. of the labour force. Science and technology cannot possibly advance adequately if there are insufficient engineers and scientists to see that the advances are made.
The performance figures also reflect a paucity of technological management. This was highlighted by Sir Edwin Nixon, chairman of IBM (UK), in the Financial Times recently. He said:

The country could improve its trade performance by means of better industrial management, by more appropriate education programmes, by improving work practices and a better application of technology in industry.
According to a recent report, local firms are reluctant to use information technology such as electronic mail. A recent National Economic Development Office report entitled "Strategy for construction and R and D" criticised the construction industry for its inadequate use of technical information and the inadequate funding of research and development. We should bear in mind the answer of Sir David Phillips which appears in the second volume, paragraph 31 of the report. He said:
I … commend to you the over-riding importance of deciding whether or not the future of this country requires a declining investment in science, basic, strategic and applied, and science education, or whether it does not need a different approach.
To summarise the three points I have made, we fall down on an international comparison of investment in the basic sciences. We fall down on the shortage of scientists and engineers compared with some of the leading industrial states. Technological management in the United Kingdom is inadequate and this caused the chairman of IBM UK to make the cryptic remarks which appeared recently in the Financial Times.
International collaboration is essential for large research projects. I have discovered that as the European market is conterminous but not integrated, collaboration is fundamental both to smooth frontiers and to match the achievements of the United States which has formed a highly integrated collection of states within a customs union. It is surprising when the population figures are compared between the EC, the United States and Japan, the EEC represents the greatest industrial block in size but it has the least favourable performance on high technology. The EC, if one takes the 12 states, has a population of 320 million, the United States a population of 237 million and Japan 120 million, yet it would appear that the success of the world market in technology is in reverse order. Withdrawal from commitments without agreement would reduce Britain's triple A rating as a research partner in international projects. International collaboration in high energy particle physics is the only way of remaining in this branch of science thus the migration of physicists can be expected as Britain has signalled its departure from the leading role it has chosen in the centre of excellence at Geneva.
It is significant that, while the ABRC has agreed with Kendrew to a 25 per cent. cut in the CERN subscription from 1989, it has not prompted a similar response from any other member state, they have decided to go ahead in full with their subscription rates. The threatened reduction of interest in CERN, together with the abandonment of UNESCO and the belated support for the deep ocean drilling programme, are not likely to commend the foresight of the United Kingdom negotiators. It is incredible that with the new neutron spallation source in Oxfordshire and the synchrotron radiation source in Cheshire together with the impressive United Kingdom performance in CERN that this time has been chosen to diminish our subscriptions to CERN and specially considering the opportunities arising out of the strategic defence initiative. This technology includes the building and operation of particle accelerators and the production and control of high energy particle beams. Surely, with the


SDI appearing on the horizon the Government should be prepared to go ahead with the full subscription rates beyond 1989.

Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if particle physics figures too large in the present allocation for science the answer may be not to reduce the allocation for high energy particle physics but rather to increase the allocation for science in general?

Mr. Skeet: Yes, but when one has a centre of excellence where a great deal of work has been put in by the engineers and scientists of the united Kingdom, and where one has an advantage on the world stage, it is futile to throw it away.
The Department of Education and Science has recently been apprised by the ABRC of the serious brain drain of outstanding talent among chemists and biochemists. It is inconceivable that this occasion should be chosen to disrupt the operations of the best example of European co-operation and thus accelerate this brain drain. The miners' strike cost this country no less than £5 billion. It would require but a tiny fraction of that sum to support this and many other fruitful branches of science.
There are numerous examples of other collaborative efforts and these will include CERN. There are 13 European nations associated with CERN and it is financed in the United Kingdom through SERC. Eleven countries are associated with the European Space Agency, which is funded through the MOD, the DTI and SERC. The ISIS neutron spallation source in Chiltern, Oxfordshire involves the United Kingdom, France and Italy. The European incoherent scatter facility is situated in Norway and involves that country, Sweden, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. The EUREKA programme involves 18 European nations and concentrates on information technology telecommunications, robotics, materials, biotechnology, marine technology and a number of other disciplines. Finally, Esprit is funded by the Commission itself.
When one considers the state of our technology in the United Kingdom one would like to think that of the 10 projects which have been set forth in the EUREKA programme we in the United Kingdom have more than three places in consortia. That is, first, in the creation of European standards for personal educational microcomputers, secondly in high performance cutting and welding lasers and thirdly in medical diagnostic kits for certain social diseases. If the United Kingdom had the ball more at its feet it would have got more out of the EUREKA programme—although I agree that the programme is largely pushed by the French.
European collaboration is significant and important but industrial collaboration with the universities' laboratories and polytechnics—the scientific infrastructure of this country—is necessary to secure the objectives of improved living standards and fuller employment. There is a trend to encourage closer collaboration between the 45 universities of the United Kingdom and industry rather than to persist with the development of research institutions which were, and will continue to be the traditional practice of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and NERC but to a lesser extent the Medical Research Council.
The argument for this policy has been portrayed by Professor Sir John Kingman, former chairman of SERC. He said:
We believe that research activity on the whole is best carried out in universities where it can influence the teaching activities and more generally the spirit of research can communicate itself to the younger generation.
I fully agree with that. It will involve further rationalisation of research councils. Who will pay for the restructuring which is recognised as being in the interest of universities? I agree with the report that restructuring does not represent the proper use of the science budget. The money required could be used for other branches of science.
The close interface between universities and industry is best demonstrated by the development of science parks in the United Kingdom. There are now 30 and the leading example is perhaps the science park at Cambridge. Initiatives at universities with an eye to later commercial advantage are illustrated by work on the optic computer at the Heriot-Watt university at Edinburgh. The additional revenue thus secured is not sufficient, however, to make up for the loss of grant during the past five years. We also have the Prudential-backed South Bank technopark at the South Bank polytechnic, which is designed to accommodate some 100 technology companies and is due to come into operation in 1987. The Government's innovation grants have helped in that connection.
The House has heard two statements today. One concerned the future of social security and the other concerned the future of a company which might be a key industry in the United Kingdom. These will illustrate the point I am about to make. National investment in research and development is utterly insufficient. Dr. Roberts, the independent member of the ABRC, said at paragraph 32 in the second volume of the report:
I do not believe we will improve the economic strength of this country by spending more on social security".
Having read that part of the report with some care, I thought that it was a good idea to examine the public expenditure plans for 1985–86. Expenditure on health and personal social services works out at £16·4 billion and expenditure on social security totals £40 billion. Added together, they represent 42 per cent. of total public expenditure—£134 billion—or 47 per cent. of the revised figure. Wealth-creating expenditure amounts to only £21 billion, or 16 per cent.
Research and development for 1986–87 reaches only £4·6 billion. It is a minuscule sum, and half of that will go on defence research and development. We hope to expand the economy and provide employment for future generations. To achieve that we must spend a certain amount on social security but we are certainly not spending enough on the technological industries that will provide the jobs of tomorrow and the money to pay for them.
Civil research and development is accorded a low rating in the United Kingdom because of a paucity of funds. Expenditure on almost everything continues to expand—energy, agriculture, social services and defence—but expenditure on research has been level funded. The only tribute that I can pay to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that he made a little extra money become available in the autumn statement for science. I dare say that he gave ABRC all that it asked for. It is not asking for more, but it is obvious to anybody who studies this subject that the United Kingdom requires much more than appears to be


the case. The cost of equipment has advanced ahead of the rate of inflation and commissions from Government Departments have fallen drastically.
The unfortunate repercussions have fallen on the science budget as illustrated by Sir David Phillips saying at paragraph 37 of the report that genetic engineering and protein engineering depend on the purchase of expensive materials such as enzymes and radio-isotopes. It has been reckoned that the expenses of an individual researcher used to amount to about £1,000 whereas now he requires between £7,000 and £8,000. The Government have not compensated for that increase adequately.
I strongly believe that private industry could do more. It is in industry's interests to participate, but its contribution varies from industry to industry. The Green Paper admits that no substantial part of established public funding responsibilities can be substituted by private finance. Some industries such as the pharmaceutical industry have always made a significant contribution. It is agreeable to find that the Wellcome Trust proposes to double its support for medical research in Britain from £22 million to £45 million. Other companies and enterprises may suggest what can be done, but much research is abstract and will not receive any immediate payment, so it is unlikely to be supported entirely by the private sector.
Expenditure on defence research and development is significant. Out of total research and development expenditure of £4·6 billion in 1986–87, civil research represents £2·2 billion and defence research and development £2·3 billion. The money spent on defence research and development has climbed by 22 per cent. between 1972 and 1983, but expenditure on civil research and development rose by only 2 per cent. in real terms over the same period. That is all the more extraordinary since defence activities account for only a small part of British exports—about 3 per cent. Defence research and development rarely stimulates a commercial advance. Industry's financing of research and development rose by only 0·9 per cent. in Britain between 1967 and 1982 whereas it rose by roughly 4 per cent. in the United States, 5·9 per cent. in France and the Federal Republic of Germany and by 9·8 per cent. in Japan.
Professor Sir John Kingman, who is now the Vice Chancellor of Bristol university, said:
we ought either to shift the balance, or alternatively find a mechanism by which defence investment can have more interconnection with the civil and in particular academic research.
We have made a move in this direction in the Alvey programme, associating the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and SERC. Surely more could be done in that regard. In paragraph 15 of the report, Sir David Phillips said:
In the current round of the annual review of Government research and development … an attempt is made to break down the Ministry of Defence expenditure.
What is the Ministry of Defence's expenditure? Has the breakdown been done? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will let me know and also say what part of the expenditure goes on "research". It will then be possible to calculate how much can be applied to civilian research. I suspect that well below 10 per cent. is spent on research and that therefore the size of the spin-offs is limited. I bend to my hon. Friend's further knowledge and hope that he will be able to give an answer.
I conclude with a few words about the structural position. I am bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which must end at 7

o'clock. I recommend the merger of the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development and the ABRC. There can be no justification for having two bodies. I appreciate the skills in ACARD, but all the services could be discharged by the ABRC, into which it could merge.
Better co-ordination between the research councils and the chief scientists of the Ministries is required. Although associated on the ABRC it has been the withdrawal of the departmental commissionings that has caused disruption to research councils and universities in recent years. If there were more co-ordination and if the left hand knew more about what the right hand was doing the research councils would not be in such difficulties. NERC, it seems, may be suffering administrative rather than scientific problems.
We are in an age of mergers and I recommend another—between the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body into a new higher education council which deals with polytechnics. There is a need for such a council, which could eradicate the difference between the two sectors. The polytechnics are making a big mark in their contribution to industry. I do not want polytechnics to be at a disadvantage compared with the universities which have that traditional role.
The Department of Education and Science has other responsibilities than education. It has to look after youth and, of course, science. Its performance in science matters has not been satisfactory in the last few years.
We should consider establishing a new structure which is accountable for science. That would give it the prominence that it deserves in a modern industrial state. It would signal a new approach by Government and ensure that firms were structured to withstand competitive forces.
Britain is only at the beginning of change. I do not go as far as to suggest that we should have a Ministry for science. However, I suggest that that should be considered. We are discussing a major subject—the future of science; the future of our exports and employment. All that is based on the technology discovered today and implernented by industry tomorrow. That technology will do much to guarantee jobs and a good standard of living, yet today's debate, crucial as it is, is crammed into such a short period. It must end in one and a quarter hours.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I shall make a brief intervention because this is a short, but important, debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject. It is notable, but not surprising, that he chose this subject. The House and the country will be grateful to him.
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) to the Front Bench. We are pleased to see him and look forward to great things from him, particularly in science matters.
Most hon. Members will agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North about the importance of science. We share his disappointment, and that of one committee after another, about low expenditure on basic and applied scientific research in the United Kingdom. We are particularly weak in civil research and development. Much of the public funding of research and development is on defence. There is wide agreement that something should


be done about that, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North on his suggestions for tackling the problems.
It is a pity that the funds bandied around in takeover bids in the City and the spare cash on the capital market are not being channelled into companies' research and development programmes.
I have a suggestion that might spotlight the problem. We should make it a statutory requirement for all companies to publish the amount that they spend on research and development and the percentage of sales and turnover that it represents. That would help hon. Members and others who are interested to analyse the amount of research and development that is taking place and to put pressure on companies to spend more on scientific developments.
The Government's expenditure pattern is low compared with that of other countries in terms of percentage of gross domestic product per head of population. It is worrying that it is only one side of the analysis. Percentage of GDP is one thing, but we must also take into account the size of GDP. Our GDP is lower than that of most of our competitors, such as Japan, Germany and America. That means that in volume terms the comparison is even worse. The comparison between the United Kingdom and our major industrial competitors, such as Japan, West Germany, and other European countries is deeply disturbing.
We are particularly worried about what the Government are spending. The autumn statement gave the new science budget allocations of £614 million for 1986–87, £628 million for 1987–88 and £647 million for 1988–89. The figures represent an increase of about £15 million in 1986–87 and a further £15 million in 1987–88 and in 1988–89.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Far from the amount spent on science research and development reflecting the total gross domestic product, the reverse is true. If we want to keep in the forefront of nations, we should be spending a higher proportion of our GDP on research and development instead of spending only that which seems reasonable compared with expenditure by other countries.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I agree.
The figures that I mentioned amount to a cash increase of 7·5 per cent. which, on the basis of the Treasury's lower inflation forecasts, is designed to maintain level funding in real terms over the next few years.
The increased funding amounts only to what the Advisory Body for Research Councils calculates as the minimum required. Taking account of past erosion and future costs of the research councils, the ABRC recommends total increases of £15 million, £30 million and £40 million—a total of £85 million. That would allow for a 1 per cent. per annum real growth in the science budget over the next three years. That modest and minimal claim is substantially less than that suggested by the Education, Science and Arts Committee report, "The Future of the Science Budget", which recommends a 3 per cent. increase. Those are modest sums compared with what many hon. Members would like to see.
The only future for Britain is one in which we have highly professional, high technology-based industry and commerce with a highly educated and qualified work

force, in which we have high value added, in which we are beating our competitors and in which we are carrying out research across the board on the frontiers of science.
It is palpably obvious that major countries, such as America, Japan, West Germany, France and Italy, are overtaking us substantially in one sphere after another. Unless the Government give a lead with budgets, industry will not be prepared to respond with civil research and development. Therefore, the Government have an enormous responsibility to do something about the current position.
In addition, we all want to see some of the money that the Government spend on defence research and development having a spin-off in the commercial sphere. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said, we need a much bigger spin-off than we get at present. Will the Government consider establishing a company, possibly under the British Technology Group, to promote civilian exploitation of defence research and development? It may be difficult, for official secrets reasons, to exploit some of the research and development in the defence sphere, but if there were a much better mechanism, under the umbrella of the British Technology Group, it might be possible for much more to be done.

Mr. Jackson: rose—

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I have only a few minutes. I prefer to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his points during his own speech.
The Government can do a number of things, and I have mentioned some of them. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North about merging the ABRC and the ACARD and having a council for science policy. There is a great deal to commend that and a wide spectrum of opinion would be in favour of it. We can improve the operation of the Alvey project by increasing its size and possibly making small firms contribute only 10 per cent. towards their projects in order to give them an advantage. The Government should consider the various suggestions that have been made.
At the end of the day it comes back to a matter of political will. What vision do the Government have of the future of our industry and technology? What vision do they have for Britain's future? Do they see Britain having a low-paid, low-skilled economy, or do they see it as a country in which we carry on the professional and academic excellence of the past? Over the past few years there have been precious few signs, from the amount of money that the Government have contributed to scientific research and development, that they are intent on making Britain one of the world leaders in science and technology. I hope that the Minister will reassure not only hon. Members but the scientific community outside and industry generally that the Government will move much more strongly in that direction in future.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on being successful in the ballot—something that in 26 years I have never succeeded in doing—and on picking a topic of major importance which is much greater than one would believe from the 0·2 per cent. of the Back Benchers of the House of Commons who are present. That is particularly unfortunate.
As this is meant to be a debate, I should like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). He referred specifically to the need to have industry and commerce record on their annual balance sheets what they spend on research and development, either as a percentage of their turnover or the actual amount. He obviously missed a question that I put down to my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology the other day in which I urged that that should be legally enforceable, as it is in a number of American and European states. I am afraid that I got a pretty dusty answer, so perhaps we can unite to try to ensure that that is done. After all, it is a simple matter. It would be helpful to everybody and keep industry more on its toes.
This debate is not just an academic exercise; it is about the creation of wealth—so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services can come to the Dispatch Box and announce the giving away of the tens of billions of pounds which are necessary in social welfare today. Unless industry can create the necessary wealth, all that falls to the ground. It is imperative that the Government understand that the future of Britain's industrial and manufacturing base can be sustained, and the base itself will grow only, if pure research and industrial research and the development of that research are not just helped but are positively assisted and encouraged by the Government so as to ensure that industry places greater emphasis on it. Research needs a lead and an incentive from the Government and from each Department in individual sectors in their sponsorship in the different areas of industry.
I wish that I could tell the House that Britain has a fine record in that area, but exactly the opposite is the case. In the financial year 1984–85 the United States spent over $110 billion on research and development—$66 billion coming from the private sector and $44 billion from Government. Europe spent only $50 billion—S25 billion coming from Governments and $25 billion from industry. Germany, France and the United Kingdom made up 83 per cent. Britain's paltry contribution was about $15·8 billion—$9·1 billion coming from the private sector. But Japan spent $24 billion—$18 billion from the private sector and $6 billion from Government. When we consider expenditure per capita, the British and European position becomes much worse. America spends $535 per head, Japan $351 per head, Europe $227 per head—and it is much less in the United Kingdom.
The trend is terrifying. Britain is getting worse. If one takes 1975 as the base of 100, Europe progresses between 1975 and 1983 from 100 to 128 and the United States from 100 to 141, and Japan nearly doubles from 100 to 183. How can we possibly expect to stay in the lead and to be able to create the industrial strength that we want for industry if the contributions of Government and industry are falling so far behind? I am not a pure monetarist. That is why I am not sitting on the Treasury Bench. But this is an area outside monetarism where Governments should be giving a lead and where there is an absolute demand.
Surely we should be able to compete with what the French are doing. However, the New Scientist on 18 October said:
As the French government begins to prepare for a general election … it remains committed to a significant increase in funding for research and development … announced that spending by governmentt departmens on R and D will reach a

total of 42·5 billion francs. With an anticipated inflation rate of 4 per cent., this translates into a planned real growth of 4·2 per cent.—and compares with the zero growth that is being imposed on public spending … the government is proposing that tax credits on the new research and development efforts of industrial companies be raised from 25 to 50 per cent.
Why can we not emulate that? In real terms, research and development in Britain is on a downward trend. The Government must get their priorities right. It is little use the Exchequer providing hundreds of millions of pounds to train and retrain the unemployed if industry is contracting and therefore unable to provide the jobs. Surely the need for industrial expansion is accepted by everyone, including the Government.
The Government should have industrial expansion as one of their major objectives in dealing with unemployment. That is where the new jobs can be provided. They will be provided not by attempting to regenerate old and dying industries, but by the new industries, the new technologies, the new developments and the new sciences—those areas in which, I am sorry to say, we are too often overtaken by Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and America. It will only be through new technology and discovery, with proper development, that jobs will be created.
The Government must not turn away from supporting basic research which, on the whole, they support quite well. We must ensure that we put our knowledge to use in industry more quickly than other countries that make use of our technology and expertise through our brain drain. We must increase our efforts in engineering research. The link between fundamental scientific research and its application in engineering and marketing is essential. Our industrial development has so often been behind our inventions.
There is a real need for the Department of Education and Science to co-operate with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that our tax structure provides incentives for industrial development. I do not necessarily mean providing money from the taxpayer, but allowing industry to use its money for such development through a tax policy designed to encourage such use.
In September, I was elected chairman of the Science and technology committee of the North Atlantic Assembly—a group of 16 nations working in concert on science and technology. During its last meeting, resolutions were passed to attempt to deal with the problems of technological transfer and the duplication of expenditure on science and technology within the Alliance. The total amount spent within the Alliance is about $200 billion per annum. A conservative estimate is that between 18 and 30 per cent. of that expenditure is duplicated. Why can we not get together to try to cut the amount of duplication? I accept that duplication cannot be eradicated altogether because there will be competition and areas where it is impossible to co-operate. However, if we could cut duplication by just 25 per cent., the minimum we would obtain for additional expenditure on research and development would be $16 billion. Let us think what that would mean in real terms. Let us think what that would mean in advancement in research and development within industry.
Has the Minister considered the resolutions passed by the Alliance? They were:


to consider the added expense, in terms of effort and resources, of the disagreement on technology transfer policies, and to assess the savings and benefits of reaching a compromise on these policies".
Have we done that? If not, why not? They continued:
to consult with the United States in a reappraisal of the Military Critical Technologies List in order to decrease restrictions on technologies which are already available outside the United States"—
but which, of course, are actually still restricted by the United States, which is absolute nonsense—
to consider the creation, in each Alliance nation, of a Technology Transfer Bureau to assume overall responsibility for dealing with high-technology exports, and to report their views to the Assembly.
The Alliance wants to achieve greater co-operation between its member nations.
Those are ordinary, sensible and businesslike recommendations. Perhaps they are too ordinary and too businesslike, but they should be taken up by the Government. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that will happen.
Today saw the launching of Industry Year 1986. Five Ministers of the Crown, together with a number of Members of Parliament—some of whom are in the Chamber—spoke about the need for the creation of growth. That was an excellent and necessary thing to do. However, in pushing forward the need for Industry Year, no policy is more important than trying to move our young people towards the realisation that within industry science, technology and research are just as important as they are in universities and that they exist for the creation of wealth for the whole nation. That is the note on which I began my speech, and that is the only way that the need for research and development can be sold to the nation.

6·7 pm

Dr. M. S. Miller: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) on his choice of subject for the debate. It is a matter of extreme importance to the nation. I agree not only with the hon. Gentleman but with the hon. Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). This is a matter on which we are all united.
I have only one small quarrel with the terms of the motion which is where it states:
a mechanism must be found for harnessing for civil use the fruits of defence research.
I would go further than that and suggest that we should spend more on civil research and allow some of that to spin off to defence. The proportion of our expenditure on research and development that is devoted to defence is far too high. Although the Secretary of State for Education and Science says that Britain compares reasonably favourably with other countries in research and development, he forgets to mention that a high proportion of that expenditure is devoted to defence.
I especially agree with the part of the motion that states:
the employment and standard of living of tomorrow depends upon the research undertaken by the community today.
I was in Italy earlier this year—in, of all places, Palermo—and all the lamp standards carried a notice stating:
In affare, non vincerete le battiglie di domani con la technologia di ieri.
That means
In business matters we do not win the battles of tomorrow with the technology of yesterday.

That is exactly what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North said.
Many hon. Members have visited the Secretary of State for Education and Science and have received the same comment, that we are now a poor nation and cannot therefore be expected to spend so much on research and development, but it is the other way round—the poorer we become, the more we must spend to return to our past position. We should not be cheese-paring, because by spending money on scientific research we are planting the seedcorn for the future. That is important, and the Secretary of State's attitude is short-sighted.
It is not a question of undertaking research only where scientific development can be applied. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that we should consider not only applied science but basic science. We were strong on basic science, which involves research and development which at the time does not seem to have an application. It is also excellent to undertake research and development for application, but it is necessary to do scientific research, even if one does not see the fruits of it immediately. For that reason, we must be involved in particle physics. The Germans are good at it, and we should play a bigger part in CERN. We have fallen behind the United States of America, the USSR, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan and France, and we may even be behind South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. I hope not.
Last week the London Standard published a large paragraph on "Medical research sacrificed". The vice chancellor of London university, Lord Flowers, talking about cuts in General Medical Council expenditure, said:
if spending cuts continue Britain will no longer be able to maintain acceptable standards of teaching for its doctors … Research is being sacrificed in order to protect patient care and teaching.
By that he means that patient care and teaching cost so much that the Government do not believe that they can afford to spend any more on research and development. In other words, the necessity to treat patients is being made the enemy of more research. We should not accept that.
That is having a disastrous effect on our young academics and our universities. I have an interest, as I have a son who is a science university lecturer. He cannot obtain a permanent post, and he will undoubtedly go abroad. He could be useful to the United States, European countries and other parts of the world. That step will be emulated by many young men and women whom we cannot afford to lose. I plead with the Government to take today's debate seriously. It has not been attended by a large number of hon. Members, but there are present those who over the years have shown an interest in the matter. Again I commend the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North for introducing the subject and asking the Government to take our comments seriously.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: All hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) for introducing the debate, which is of the greatest significance. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said, these debates bring to the Chamber the same small, dedicated, interested and enthusiastic group of hon. Members, among whom there is a great deal of agreement.
For some time my hon. Friend and I have been propagating the idea that we need an office of technology


assessment. I shall not deal with that now, but when I see that the matter again falls to us to consider, I wonder whether we need an office of indifference assessment. That would be more to the point. Scientists have a right to complain. They may complain that we do not understand, but they can remedy that, as we can. However, they have a legitimate complaint if they feel that we do not care, which is something that they cannot and should not attempt to forgive. We are a small group, and we must do our best.
My hon. Friend and I disagree about having a Minister for Science, but when the subject is discussed at national level or in the House, we experience the lack of a Minister to fight this corner with energy and determination, which it needs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will fulfill that role and that he will rise rapidly to the Cabinet, where alone this fight can be carried out. That is where it must be fought and won.
I want to discuss the interesting contrast between two or three reports on the subject which have been published recently. The report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on science and public expenditure 1985 is of great significance. It is a staggering document, as most hon. Members present will appreciate. There is no time to go into it in detail, but I wish to draw attention to some phrases in it. The report states that the council is
unable to fund ⅓of the Alpha quality research proposals from higher education",
that the
council cannot afford the instrumentation necessary for this kind of research",
and that it
cannot meet the agreed share of the cost of collaborative research with industry in information technology.
Lord Stockton suddenly latched on to the importance of information technology in his fascinating speech in the other place recently, and we welcomed that.
Molecular biology is a subject of immense significance today. The report states that it
can only be given ½ the funds it needs to buy top priority state of the art equipment.
That shows the tremendous increase in the real cost of science.
Natural Environment Research Council projects are
underfunded to the point of ineffectiveness.
The research councils have lost 2,000 staff since 1981–82. The Science and Engineering Research Council has lost 70 posts, and redeployed 250. "Big" science has fallen from taking up 70 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the budget, but there is no time to enter into that controversy. The Medical Research Council has lost 228 posts. The NERC has lost 450 posts to date. It will lose 300 in 1985–86, and 600 between 1986 and 1990, and so it goes on.
We hear such phrases as
The well-found laboratory no longer exists",
and
It is difficult for the most outstanding research scientists to secure research appointments.
Another phrase, used by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, refers to
The exodus of outstanding young scientists from the United Kingdom.
This is dangerous and is something which no Government, of whatever party, dare neglect. We neglect it at our peril. Another phrase is:
Parliament, the Government and the country are complacent.

That criticism is not without considerable substance. If it is true, we have cause to look to our laurels, in this place., in the Government and in the country.
The conclusions of the report are of the utmost importance. It says:
Year by year reduction may appear to be modest, but the cumulative effect may be that by 1990 the UK's science base could be 10 per cent. smaller than in 1980.
It refers to a steady attrition that has
squeezed out investment in many new and growing areas of science, crucial to developing the industries of tomorrow.
I think that this is now virtually common ground between every hon. Member here. I await with great interest to hear what the Government say.
In reply to the general case, we often hear that we are a poor country and that we do not have the funds, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. Where do funds come from? The House gives us an unrivalled perspective from which to comment on that interesting question. We have just heard that some £5,000 million was wasted on the miners' strike. Perhaps that was unavoidable or a distribution or wasting of resources that could not have been diverted into expenditure on science. Be that as it may, we should look at some of the other points, such as the great industrial subsidy market where, as we know, we seldom look at figures with fewer than eight noughts on the end. We pass them with an aplomb that would do credit to someone who has just won the pools. We see projects such as Nimrod, with nine noughts on the end, or the De Lorean sportscar, with eight noughts on the end. We see vast sums lost in the naval dockyards year after year.
Perhaps most interesting and significant of the lot, because it is in the context of the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North on the balance between expenditure on the welfare state and expenditure on science and the seedcorn is the extraordinarily interesting document just issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General which disclosed that, as a result of the strike in Newcastle, some £170 million has just disappeared. No one knows where it has gone. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not know, although he can guess. However, he knows the scale of the sum.
We know that the Science and Engineering Council is asking for about £40 million to £50 million just to stabilise the situation. That is a large sum in scientific terms but by comparison with some of the sums with the eight or nine noughts at the end, which we often pass on the Estimates on the nod, or sometimes discuss, it is, to use an old word, peanuts.

Mr. Jackson: In the catalogue of alternatives, will my hon. Friend consider the following proposition from the latest Government annual general review:
the UK Government comes bottom or next to bottom of the R and D league of the six major European Community nations in all areas except Defence, where it is top."?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an interesting and important point. We realise that there is an imbalance between research and development on defence and that in the civil sector, and the Government have been making valiant and interesting efforts to move the results of research, wherever possible and wherever security is not involved, out of defence and into the civil sector, more of which must be done.
However, that does not address or solve the problem of the basic allocation of resources as a percentage of research and development. I share the view that has been expressed twice already, that this is where our real wealth


will once again be created—if we restore the standards, quality and effectiveness of our basic science. An interesting point has been made, not only by Sir John Kingman but during the debate in the other place on the history of the ESPRIT programme and new technology. It was made by my noble Friend Lord Stockton, who said that the distinction between basic science and applied science was difficult to draw. Drawing artificial distinctions and saying that we will do this here and not that there can lead to great difficulties and destroy the standards that we are trying to achieve.
I draw attention to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North about Japan. We are constantly being asked to look at the Japanese example to see what we can learn from Japan. I looked at a recent United Nations report on this, and the trends are staggering. I can give figures only in billion yens, because those figures are given in the report, but in the years 1965, 1970, 1975 and 1979, the Japanese GNP, which is after all what we are trying to emulate, is where the wealth is coming from. One reads, as I did this morning, that Japan has one of the largest net overseas investments of any country, not excluding the United States.
If that is the case, how is it done? Expenditure on research and development for the same years, starting in 1965 and coming up to 1979, was 486 billion yen, 1,300 billion yen, 2,900 billion yen, 4,608 billion yen and finally, planned for the present, 2·5 to 3 per cent. of GNP. That is the background, that is the challenge that we are facing, and we have no real alternative but to look seriously again at the scale and direction of national resources that we are deploying. It is only by that redeployment that we shall achieve the swing round that is the common objective of all parties and of all hon. Members. Only by achieving that shall we create a base on which the wealth of Britain towards the end of this century and the beginning of the 21st century will be acceptable, defensible and worth achieving.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I shall add to what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) said, but say something about the use of technology for disabled people. Some 21 years ago, I had my first Adjournment debate on this subject, and the man whom I mentioned on that occasion was the oldest surviving respiratory polio victim in the world. He is still living but he is completely paralysed, unable to breathe, speaks by throat breathing but from his bed exports hospital beds, by the application of technology.
I should have been happier if the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North had said something about the quality of life and independence for the disabled by the careful application of technology. We talk about NASA and the space age, but last July I saw a wheelchair made of carbon fibre which an old lady could pick up, easily put on a bus or in the boot of a car and help her aged husband to go all around the place. She gave him mobility and access, both of which were the product of advanced work in space.
We have an example in the House of a fallout from technology, used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has applied the techniques of Palantype typing, which may be in use in the Chamber today, to turn the symbols into words that are

readable on a visual display unit. This means that my right hon. Friend can follow the proceedings in this House. This technology was evolved at Southampton university. It involves a substantial amount of word and language use and micro-circuitry of the highest order. That kind of technology will eventually be of value to everybody in our society.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North for moving this motion. I believe, however, that a committee ought to be formed to investigate the application of technology to the disabled. By raising the quality of life of the disabled and the frail elderly, it is possible that we should save money. I have linked this subject on many occasions with various motions. This is technically possible, economically sound and morally right.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Once again a debate on science policy has run out of time before all hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak. I am particularly sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has followed science policy for many years and who failed to catch your eye last time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has been unble to speak in this debate. It is a clear indication that we shall need to hold another debate on science policy in six months or so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), as have other hon. Members, upon his selection of this topic. He has followed with enterprise and effectiveness his role as chairman of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, an admirable body which he is revivifying. It has an important part to play in securing for science and technology the attention of the House and the country, which science so badly needs.
I welcome to the Treasury Bench the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I am sure that there is plenty in this subject to provide ample scope for his considerable talents, particularly his diplomatic talents—much needed in a topic of burning concern to science at the present time.
In the six months since our last debate there has been little progress on science policy. The Science and Engineering Research Council's corporate plan is to be published tomorrow. It will highlight the areas of strategic research in science and engineering that are essential to the future industrial development of this country. These opportunities are being seized by other countries—the United States and Japan and also Germany and France. However, this country is still neglecting them.
The grant for the first year that was sought by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils—a minimal increase of £15 million in the science vote—was agreed by the Government. For that small mercy we give thanks. One leg of the dual support system has been jacked up by one peg, but the other leg has been jacked down several pegs by continuing cuts in the funding of higher education. There has been a 2 per cent. a year reduction in the funding of universities. That is incomprehensible in the face of the need and the opportunity to build up skilled manpower and research. No doubt in the future, as in the past, the cuts will fall disproportionately upon research activity.
On the relative decline of support for British science—therefore, of British science itself—there have been two new important sources of information since June. The ABRC approached 40 leading research groups—those


most likely to attract such funds as are available. Nineteen of those groups had been selected by the University Grants Committee as potential recipients for the additional equipment funds. Yet in this privileged group the survey found grave concern about increasing losses overseas not only of their most talented students and post-doctoral research workers but of their outstanding senior scientists. The litany of complaints that they listed is familiar to all those who visit research laboratories and universities: that there are more posts overseas and better pay, prospects and facilities, and that there is aggressive recruiting by United States' universities and industry and greater receptiveness by American industry of new ideas. That is contrasted with the frustration of not getting research grants and the resistance to new ideas that is found in Government and industry in this country. The provision of research equipment, central facilities, like the nuclear structure facility, and well-funded, well-staffed research groups, like molecular biology at Cambridge, demonstrate that proper support for science works in this country, and that we should do more.
In June the Secretary of State doubted the 30 per cent. increase, in real terms, in Federal Government support for basic research in science and engineering in universities and colleges in the United States. He agreed that figure with me in correspondence, but he pointed out that it had followed a long period of decline. What has happened in Britain? There has been evidence of a brain drain, and that evidence helped with the first £15 million. At Easter there will be the results of a more thorough survey by the Royal Society into the brain drain. Its report will be available in ample time for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to raise his sights at the next public expenditure round.
There is no need to wait to see evidence of the decline. There has been a further instalment of Irvine and Martins' analysis of publications and citations, bringing the story up to 1982. Of particular interest is the record in particular sciences. I refer to one technology in which I am particularly interested. Heading the areas of decline in applied science is metallurgy, with a 34 per cent. decrease in the share of publications from the United Kingdom between 1977 and 1982. With cause and effect flowing in both directions, this is mirrored in the British Steel Corporation's cut in research and development, in real terms, of 45 per cent. since the Government took office in 1979, with the surrender of all basic research and of recruitment of new blood into the BSC laboratories. That has inevitably resulted in the loss of competitiveness of the higher grade steels that are produced by that industry.
In the light of that kind of evidence, which is accumulating, we should reappraise the targets for the science budget. Level funding makes no provision for sophistication. Sophistication is difficult to measure, but the 2 per cent. per annum put forward by the ABRC is at least a step. However, a constant share of a rising gross domestic product, growing in the long term at 3 per cent. per annum, is the least that the present Government might hope to be able to maintain. The need to catch up in science and technology however, is a factor that we must introduce into the argument. From its peak in 1972, research council expenditure, in real terms, in this country has fallen by 10 per cent., while the GDP has risen by 25 per cent. Therefore, both to match the United States' increase since 1981 and to achieve past shares of GDP in the United Kingdom, a 30 to 40 per cent. increase in

research council expenditure on basic and strategic research and development seems to me to be the kind of target for which the scientific community should start to lobby.
That recovery should be followed by more modest growth, but with a big step up in the minimum number of years in which it can be achieved. The United States achieved the 30 per cent. increase in four years. We should begin to plan the phasing of the increase that cart be efficiently absorbed by this country without recreating all the demographic bulges that followed the expansion of the universities in the 1960s and 1970s but that cart be managed within the more modest and limited increase to which we are referring for the research councils.
The research councils and the ABRC have to lobby within the impact that can be achieved on this Government. But they also have to contribute to shaping public opinion and expectations. We are not talking about pay increases for scientists and technologists. We are talking about the science and the technology that are needed to put Britain into a competitive position among the industrial nations. There is an acute pay problem in the universities and in education generally, but that is a separate issue with which we are not dealing in this debate.
There is also mis-spending and misallocation of money and, more important, of scarce scientific manpower, of which the most horrific example is the strategic defence initiative. Star wars simply will not work technologically. The computing side, which holds it all together. is best documented, and it shows that, however fast the optical computers may be, the software problems remain and they are insoluble.
Professor David Parnas of the University of Victoria, who resigned from the SDI advisory committees, is a recognised world expert who continues to be active in naval research in the United States. He has described the difficulties clearly involved in writing and debugging a vast software system that can never be tested in operation. It is as if one were suddenly to switch on for the first time all the computers of all the airlines in the world without having given them a trial run, and expect them to work. SDI poses a comparable problem.
There has been widespread protest among computer scientists, yet the Government have ignored and overridden them. Artificial intelligence, automatic programming and other software developments pleaded in aid in the SDI will not ease the problem. To divert this vast effort into a field that cannot work is a poor way of developing techniques that are useful in systems that can work.
A much more difficult field is CERN, where the particle physicists and machines at Geneva and elsewhere work so brilliantly. It would be quite wrong to interpret the intention of the Kendrew report as cutting off Britian's interest in particle physics. However, there is a general feeling among scientists that, even with budget increases, particle physics would be getting too large a share.
There are also clear long-term problems in relation to decision making in particle physics research, on the machines, the accelerators and individual experiments. As a result, particle physicists may expect to see through only two experiments in a working lifetime.
The Kendrew report set out a negotiating position, and it is up to Ministers, particularly the hon. Member for


Buckingham, to carry out the negotiations. In doing so, I hope that he will keep in close touch with working physicists.
I urge two particular directions that should be explored. The first is wider international collaboration. In the post-Geneva atmosphere, there ought to be some scope for the redrawing of national programmes and time scales between Europe, the United States and the Soviet Union. The super-powers will retain their own activities as insurance against any unexpected discoveries of fundamental military or economic importance. But they will also collaborate, and they have an interest in involving Europe in that collaboration.
The other direction in which I encourage the Minister to seek the advice of scientists is the unbundling of the vast range of experimental technique that goes into the particle accelerators and the experiments that use them. Ministers should encourage the particle physicists to seek allies in other sciences. The techniques in instrumentation, computing, pattern recognition, materials, and so on, are potentially applicable not only in industry—although that is important—but in other sciences. It will cost more than a dedicated technique, but a shared technique will cost less to any one science.
I am talking not about spin-off, but about synergy from considering with other scientists the fundamental problems of experiments and the best way of tackling them. This is a long-term development and aid, but particle physics needs to take account of horizons beyond 1990. If the Minister can hold out a perspective beyond then in the further years up to the end of the century, he may find it somewhat easier to negotiate the transition with other countries and with CERN.
The rationalisation of United Kingdom space interests is welcome, but it could become a sink for low-grade imitative technology if scientific research is not given a sufficient role within it. The continuing attrition of agricultural research is utterly deplorable in the face of the problems that we see worldwide, and the much greater problems that will arise at the end of this century and into the next when the population of the world doubles. That is the time scale in which we shall need the results of the plant genetic engineering that is now becoming possible.
The machinery of government remains as undeveloped now as it was in June, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister what use he is making of it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has done us all a service by proposing the motion. The need to maintain the debate on a high level is obviously self-evident, and my hon. Friend did us another service by the serious and thoughtful quality of his contribution. I am personally grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me, as a relative newcomer to this subject, the chance to listen to the seasoned—sometimes highly seasoned—advice of experienced Members on all sides of the House. The debate also takes place against the background of the recent Select Committee report, about which I shall say more later.
The motion suggests, quite rightly, that without a sound research and development capability our economy, and all

that depends on it, will suffer considerably. Some hon. Members—if I caught their drift—seemed to imply that the Government were blind to all this. Through the UGC and the research councils, the Department provides more than £1 billion every year for research, but no one is complacent about the needs of science—certainly not the Government.
It was because of this recognition of the importance of the science base to future economic prosperity and their concern about evidence of a new brain drain of British scientists that the Government injected an additional £15 million into next year's science budget, representing a 2·5 per cent. cash increase. The addition is not for one year only. It will be carried forward in the baseline. Similarly, we have increased from £7 million to £10 million the amount available to the UGC next year and in 1987–88 for its selective equipment scheme, which aims to equip the best university research groups in the country to state of the art standards. The £10 million scheme will be carried forward into 1988–89.
The general equipment grant for the universities for the 1986–87 academic year will be £95 million, representing a cash increase of 5·2 per cent. over the current academic year. Additionally, the Computer Board for the Universities is to receive an increase of £1 million in 1986–87 and £2 million in each of the following years to enhance the joint academic computing network. We have today announced our decisions on the allocation of the additional £15 million for the science budget, taking account of recommendations put forward by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Copies of the board's advice have been placed in the Library.
In its advice the board says that it recognises that the additional sums will make a valuable contribution to sustaining the science base. The House will note that the addition of £15 million to the science budget in 1986–87 corresponds exactly to the bid for that year which the board puts forward in its advice "Science and Public Expenditure", which was published in June. The board recommends further additions in subsequent years. Clearly it will be important to consider these carefully in next year's public expenditure survey in the light of further information which the board has promised about costs of research, international comparisons and the health of Britain's science base—and, I may add, in the light of some of the concerns voiced in today's debate.

Mr. Skeet: We heard all about this in the autumn statement, and I am grateful for that. We have heard today that we are well behind almost every other nation in civil research and development. The Government must put a strong foot forward and do something about this. Are they prepared to do so?

Mr. Walden: I was about to discuss the larger issues in the short time that is available, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of them.
The Government have no illusions. We recognise that the scientists regard themselves as seriously constrained within existing financial provision. The problem, in a sense, is simple. Of its nature, science grows—new fields open up and new perspectives beckon. The costs of undertaking scientific research grow, notably because advances in technology—themselves usually based on advances in fundamental knowledge—lead to in-creasingly sophisticated and expensive scientific


equipment and materials. The growth of science has been described as "exponential" in the strict sense of the term. The growth of resources, I do not have to remind hon. Members, is not, but the Government recognise the pressures on the budgets of the research councils and the universities.
At the same time, let us not over-dramatise these pressures. The Government's provision for the 1986–87 scientific budget represents an increase in simple cash terms of more than 60 per cent.—£275 million—compared with the science budget in 1979–80. Measured against average inflation in the economy at large, this cash increase translates into a real terms increase of 8·5 per cent.—a far from ignoble record considering the competing demands in this period on the public purse.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will extra funds be provided in coming years for the new blood scheme?

Mr. Walden: I shall cover that point in my further remarks.
No Government could afford to go on year after year underwriting a continuing real increase in the resources devoted to science. Indeed, the growth in the science budget began to level off in mid 1970s.

Mr. Jackson: rose

Mr. Walden: I am sorry, but I have very little time in which to discuss many points.
If I have any criticism of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North it is that it seems to suggest that we should maintain support for all existing commitments—domestic and international—and support all new areas, or perhaps I have interpreted him exponentially. I wonder whether that is really possible. All developed countries—not just the United Kingdom—are having to face the problem of the inexorably growing costs of maintaining their science and technology base. In the United Kingdom we have evidence from the ABRC and from the Education, Science and Arts Committee of this House which suggests that overall our research councils' costs are growing at 3 per cent. per annum above the rate of inflation. If we were to cover those costs and the costs of meeting all new scientific opportunities, it would imply that science took a progressively larger share of our national wealth. That could scarcely be affordable in the long term. The only serious alternative must be selectivity—identifying fields and groups of researchers that hold out particular promise and concentrating resources on them.
We know from experience that, in the past, there have been serious weaknesses in terms of organisation, management and attitudes, which are only beginning to be properly tackled under this Government. I shall give the House an example of managerial weakness. It may surprise the House to know that we still have no up-to-date information about the scale and the distribution among the various areas of research activity funded through the UGC in the universities. We have no clear picture of how much is going on already and where. The overall estimate of some £600 million, which appears in the Cabinet Office's annual review of research and development, is based on a 15-year-old survey. The Department has funded a research project to provide up-to-date figures, the findings of which should be available early next year.
It seems equally remarkable that the UGC's allocation of resources to universities for research has traditionally

taken no account of the strengths and weaknesses of different institutions or of the need for greater concentration of resources as science has become more capital intensive.
In all those areas, new attitudes are now emerging. The University Grants Committee is now moving towards a more selective deployment of general research funds. The research councils are producing five-year corporate plans involving the reshaping of programmes to reflect current—as opposed to historical—priorities. I am glad to note that the Science and Engineering Research Council's first corporate plan is to be published tomorrow. Much more emphasis is being put on directed or centrally co-ordinated programmes in areas identified as being of particular strategic importance. The Economic and Social Reasearch Council has recently taken action to try to improve the appalling PhD completion rates of some of the students supported on ESRC grants. Generally, the research councils are becoming more priority-conscious and rigorous in their management.
I do not pretend that the changes that some of the new attitudes involve can be effected painlessly without some sacrifices in interesting areas of research or hardship for individuals, whether scientists or laboratory cleaners, but indiscriminate scattering of resources would be worse in the long run—worse for science, worse for employment and worse for the country as a whole.
I should like to respond to the remarks made on both sides of the House about CERN. I note the constructive attitude of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
The Kendrew report of United Kingdom participation in high energy particle physics, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, is a prime example of the inescapability of priorities. The review, which was jointly funded by the ABRC and the SERC, was established in early 1984 and published its report in June this year. The report made a number of recommendations, the main one being that United Kingdom expenditure on particle physics should be reduced by 25 per cent. by 1991 and that the funds thereby released should be reallocated to other areas of basic science.
That recommendation was not made because the review group considered that United Kingdom particle physics was in any way deficient; on the contrary, as hon. Members have said, it reported that the United Kingdom was making a significant contribution to what is an exciting field of research. The recommendation was not made because CERN had disappointed our expectations—in fact it is a brilliant example of what can be achieved by European collaboration in science.
What led the group to its conclusion was its judgment of the correct priority to be given to particle physics relative to other areas of science. I point out to my hon. friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) that in the group's view 10 per cent. of the science budget was too great a proportion for any one area, no matter how excellent.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that it would not be right to make a hasty judgment. For this reason, one of the first visits that I made after assuming my present appointment was to CERN, to see the laboratory for myself. I add that no one who has had the opportunity to visit CERN could fail to be impressed with the extraordinary work being done there or the capabilities and the enthusiasm of the scientists doing it.
The very success of CERN, however, poses a dilemma. It shows that in this area of fundamental science Europe can lead the world, but it also shows that given the resources we could do the same in other areas. CERN is a challenge, as well as a success. It challenges us to repeat the performance in other areas. CERN is a model of what can be achieved, but only if we are willing to adapt ourselves to the needs and pressures of the time.
Perhaps some figures will illustrate the dilemma. In 1984–85, not only was the CERN subscription 6·5 per cent of the total science budget, and over 12 per cent. of the SERC expenditure, but it represented more than 60 per cent. of the international subscriptions paid by the SERC. However, other, less expensive, areas of international collaboration, involving the sharing of expensive facilities, serve a larger scientific community and a wider range of scientific research. That is the view of Sir John Kendrew and his team. It is no use cultivating the illusion that Sir John Kendrew is a Treasury Minister; he is a Nobel laureate and the Government value his report and his advice.
The Government consider that the possibility of achieving significant savings from particle physics, and hence from CERN, needs to be examined seriously. Surely any organisation of the size and complexity of CERN, which has been in existence for over a quarter of a century, could benefit from a major review. I am therefore undertaking a round of bilateral consultations with Ministers of science in CERN member states, to explore with them their reactions to our idea of a joint independent review of the organisation. I stress that the Government remain firmly attached—this matter has arisen during the debate—to European collaboration in science, as has been shown by our recent actions.

Mr. Skeet: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will move only by consent, and not unilaterally, on CERN?

Mr. Walden: Our aim is to engage in consultations to achieve a joint independent review. I believe that that is a reasonable objective.
I should like to have said more about defence versus civilian research. I will simply note that the Government are keeping a close and critical eye on all departmental research programmes and on the balance of such programmes.
I am sorry that it will not be possible to respond to all the points made in the debate, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North, who initiated the debate. I should mention that we still await the advice of the ABRC on international comparisons, and we shall study them closely when they come. The restructuring costs of the councils, which are a heavy burden, have to some extent been alleviated by the new money that my right hon. Friend has found for them.
On the question of the—

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business).

Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I suggest that the motion to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses should be debated with the motion for Second Reading.

Mr. McQuarrie: I place on record at the outset the fact that this is the first opportunity that I or any hon. Member has had to discuss the Bill. It has been said by the Scottish National party in my constituency that the Bill could have been discussed or promoted earlier. To set the record straight, I should make it clear that it has not been possible to discuss the Bill in the House until this evening. I accept that the SNP in my constituency and its prospective parliamentary candidate have shown an ignorance of parliamentary procedure in suggesting otherwise.
If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—later supported by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson)—had not tabled a blocking motion on 10 July this year, the order would have been passed a long time ago. The hon. Member for Dundee, East, who is not in his place, despite his opposition to the Bill, has told his party in my constituency that he supported the trustees' proposals, but his action on 29 October clearly proved that his support was certainly not for this scheme or for the Peterhead harbour trustees. It is an example of the double standards to which we have become accustomed from the SNP in Scotland. It says one thing in my constituency and the opposite in other places. I do not blame the hon. Member for Dundee, East if he wishes to support the harbour board in his constituency, but he should not mislead my constituents who wish to see the scheme approved and welcome the progress that the Peterhead harbour board has made.
This is a Bill to confirm a provisional order made by the Secretary of State under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, after a local inquiry by commissioners, in pursuance of the Act. The order is promoted by the harbour trustees of Peterhead who are charged by statute with managing the fishing harbours at Peterhead in my constituency.
The inquiry into the provisions of the draft order was held in Peterhead from 1 to 15 May 1985 on 11 sitting days, before commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the 1936 Act. The commissioners were Lord Hughes, as chairman, the Earl of Balfour, Lady Sempill and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). The commissioners heard full and lengthy arguments for and against the order and found unanimously in favour of the scheme. The procedure at the inquiry was regular, according to law and parliamentary procedure and practice. The order, as modified in accordance with the the commissioners' recommendations, forms the schedule to the Bill.
The object of the order is to authorise harbour works which will calm the water in the existing harbours and provide additional berthing spaces for the fishing vessels.


The fishing harbours at Peterhead have become the pre-eminent port in Europe for landings of white fish. I should like to illustrate the increase in trade. The number of boxes landed at Peterhead increased from 300,000 in 1970 to 2,109,000 in the year up to March 1985. In addition, Peterhead has become an important port for the export of grain and other bulk cargoes and serves its own hinterland of grain producers in the north-east of Scotland.
Unfortunately, though acceptably, the increase in trade at Peterhead harbour has led to severe congestion in the fishing vessels' area in the harbour. At weekends particularly, vessels frequently have to berth six or seven deep from the quay wall, which makes the servicing of vessels difficult and inefficient and causes a safety hazard. The harbours are too often crowded and many vessels that use Peterhead as their home port have to be turned away.
Another problem is that steel-hulled boats have to berth alongside wooden-hulled boats, which causes considerable damage to the fishing vessels. The problem is even greater because of the excessive wave motion in the existing harbour which provides inadequate shelter for fishing vessels. The trustees have had to take that fact into consideration in putting forward their proposals.
Another important factor is that the Peterhead harbour trustees do not conduct any oil-related business in the port. That has been made clear in order to allay the fears of companies and other harbour authorities which are involved in that industry and feel that there is a threat to their business. It must be said that the trustees at Peterhead also have no intention of engaging in that business when the development has been completed.
The additional berthing space is required primarily for fishing vessels and general cargo boats. The oil supply boats are served either in the adjacent Bay of Refuge, which is not under the management of the Peterhead harbour trustees, or at the harbour in Aberdeen where the oil-berthing capacity is far greater and the facilities more suitable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the scheme proposed by the Peterhead harbour trustees will result in a loss of business for Aberdeen where the oil work is being carried out.
The draft order, together with the plans and sections of the proposals, were deposited at the Scottish Office and elsewhere, pursuant to the 1936 Act, in March 1984. Ten petitions were lodged against the draft order, but three were withdrawn before the public inquiry. The remaining seven can be grouped according to the nature of their objections.
The first group could be the Peterhead bay authority, which is responsible for the management of the adjacent harbour—the Peterhead Bay of Refuge—and the north of Scotland hydro-electric board, which have both complained that the proposed works would have a detrimental effect on the safe manoeuvring of tankers in the Bay of Refuge. The commissioners, in submitting their report to the Secretary of State for Scotland, said:
We consider that the proposed harbour extension would bring considerable benefit to the operation of the existing fishing harbour and would not prejudice the operation of the Peterhead bay harbour, and in particular the manoeuvring of tankers in the bay, especially if there is a reversion to the size of tanker which, with one exception, was used prior to the end of the coal strike.
The commissioners add, in relation to the report from the Department of Transport and the statement to the inquiry by Captain Fellingham:

In any event, we heard a considerable amount of technical evidence addressed by both the promoters and the objectors. We were much more impressed by the evidence of the promoters and we had no hesitation in accepting it.
The second group of objectors comprised the Aberdeen harbour board, the Aberdeen Stevedoring Company, the Dundee port authority and the Forth ports authority, which appeared jointly before the inquiry to complain that the works were unnecessary and would remove trade from their ports. The commissioners said:
We are further of the view that the ports of Aberdeen, Dundee and the Forth ports harbour authority as to what is proposed at Peterhead has limited foundation, but to allay some of the fears we propose to delete from the order lines 29 to 32 on page 4 which would have permitted the construction of the roll-on, roll-off facility. We would add that it is no part of our function to amend the dock labour scheme, and we cannot stultify beneficial development at non-dock labour scheme ports on the grounds that it might provide unfair competition to harbours which are within the scheme.
The final group of objectors comprised Mr. Thomas Chalmers and 17 others, residents of homes in Peterhead adjacent to the proposed works, who complained that the work would be detrimental to amenity and their houses. In the report to the Secretary of State the commissioners stated:
We have paid considerable attention to the objections of those living in the near vicinity of the proposed works but consider that any loss of amenity to them is insufficient ground for preventing the proposed development from going ahead. We propose however to impose conditions to minimise the loss of amenity by restricting the height of the wall on the proposed new south breakwater to 6·2 metres above the ordnance datum: by restricting the height of any buildings on the proposed north quay to the level of the existing retaining wall: by restricting the hours during which blasting and drilling operations can be conducted to the period between 8 am and 6 pm or half an hour before sunrise to half an hour after sunset whichever period is the shorter: and by prohibiting such work during Saturdays and Sundays: by imposing measures for the control of noise and the restriction of vibration caused by blasting and drilling operations as offered by the promoters: and by providing for comoensation for any physical damage caused by such operations under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973".
Although the commissioners ruled in this manner, I felt that I had an obligation to my constituents to pursue the matter, as I was aware that they were not wholly satisfied with the result of the inquiry.
I had a meeting with Mr. Stanley Anderson, the consulting engineer concerned with the Peterhead harbour trustees' proposals, to secure information on the other matters raised by those objectors. On being questioned about the grain operations, Mr. Anderson informed me that they had been occurring at Peterhead for more than 10 years—a matter of which I was aware and which I accepted as being true. He told me that the trustees had guaranteed that they would ensure the use of the most modern methods and equipment for loading grain on to the boats. He added that, in the early stages of the development, the grain would be loaded on to the new south quay, which would remove the boats from such close proximity to the houses. Mr. Anderson pointed out also that the companies that acted as stevedores are private contractors and that, in the interests of the objectors, the trustees would lay down instructions on the method of loading the grain to minimise any inconvenience to them.
In paragraph 4 of the petition, the objectors expressed concern at the possible increase in vehicular traffic during and after the development period. Although I accepted that there was bound to be an increase during the construction period, I believed that the limitations and restrictions


placed by the commissioners in their report would reduce that traffic. As for traffic after the development, I established that the trustees' proposals for a readjustment of the traffic system, which would have to be approved by the Grampian regional council, would result in considerably less traffic using Lodge walk and Harbour street than at present. Grampian regional council, which had originally petitioned against the order but later withdrew its objection, in its petition, said:
Your petitioners in general support the proposals by the trustees and do not object to them as such".
In paragraph 6 of the petition the same group of objectors expressed worry that, in the area of the seaward site of Harbour street and Lodge walk and adjacent to the lifeboat station, buildings and other structures would be erected which would restrict their present view of the sea.
I was satisfied that the restrictions placed by the commissioners would provide safeguards, but, in addition, Mr. Anderson guaranteed that the trustees had undertaken that no structures would be erected above the existing parapet level. It was pointed out also that any proposals for quayside structures would have to be approved by the planning committee of the Banff and Buchan district council and that full opportunities would be afforded at all stages for the residents to make representations if they thought it necessary.
The final part of the petition of these objectors is concerned with the loss of amenity ground on the seaward side of Harbour street and Lodge walk which was of benefit to the residents of Peterhead and the objectors. The petition showed that the ground was owned by Banff and Buchan district council. I am advised that that amenity area, with the seats, will be retained in an acceptable form. That undertaking has been given by the Peterhead harbour trustees. Banff and Buchan district council raised no objections to the trustees' proposals. I understand that the local authority approved them. Given those assurances and the further protection that will be available to my constituents, I am certain that any future representations that they make will be sincerely considered by the Peterhead harbour trustees.
All those petitions were carefully considered by the Parliamentary Commissioners before the report submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the normal course of events, the Bill would have been presented to Parliament and passed all stages without trouble. That was not to be, as the Aberdeen harbour board presented a petition praying that the confirming Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It is interesting to place on record that, of all the objectors who had been heard at the public inquiry, only the Aberdeen harbour board could not accept the commissioners' findings. Even the Dundee port authority had no further petition, despite the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East, in his usual arrogant manner, had chosen to oppose the Bill on his own account. No member of the Dundee harbour board appeared in person before the public inquiry.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his description of my signature to a motion to the House of Commons as "arrogant". Is he aware that I signed the motion in direct response to a request by the chief executive of my port authority?

Mr. McQuarrie: That may well be, but the hon. Member for Dundee, East was not in his place when I discussed earlier the fact that he had assured the constituency and the parliamentary candidate in Banff and Buchan that he was supporting the Peterhead harbour trustees. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a copy of the Buchan Observer in which the parliamentary candidate clearly stated that he had approached the hon. Member for Dundee, East who had given him an assurance that he would support the Peterhead harbour trustees' proposal.

Mr. Wilson: That is wrong.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that the information conveyed in the Buchan Observer by the prospective parliamentary candidate for Banff and Buchan is wrong.
It is an insult to the commissioners for the Aberdeen harbour board to pursue this matter further after the most careful consideration of its pleadings at the inquiry. Having read Mr. John Russell Turner's evidence to the inquiry, which is in pages 992 to 1138 of the proceedings, I can see the reason for the persistence. Mr. Turner is the general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board. During his evidence it was perfectly clear that he was adopting a dictatorial and evasive attitude to the Parliamentary Commissioners. It was the old story—"Whatever I say is right and whatever you say is wrong." One has only to read the evidence to gain a clear impression that Mr. Turner was determined, by any action he could take, to prevent the Peterhead trustees from successfully promoting the Bill.
Having carried out considerable research into the money that has been spent at Aberdeen harbour over the years, and the authority for carrying out that work, I asked myself: how has the Aberdeen harbour board the effrontery to petition against the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order Confirmation Bill when it has carried out over many years a works programme without asking for parliamentary approval? Should not the Aberdeen harbour board have been subjected to the same parliamentary scrutiny as the Peterhead harbour trustees?

Mr. Gerald Malone: An important point must be clarified. The Aberdeen harbour board has spent considerable sums. It has invested to improve existing port facilities, not to carry out enormous expansion such as is proposed by the Bill. That is the distinction. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to be unfair. I think it is best that he should know that that was the purpose of the expenditure.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon,. Friend for making that point, but he must accept that, in the past few years, the work in Aberdeen has been carried out with sole purpose of extending the harbour facilities—[Interruption.]— and carrying out new works. The Aberdeen harbour board has spent money on tidal works and improvements in the harbour area.
Harbour boards generally have the power to dredge the harbour and carry out maintenance and improvement work. However, the power is usually confined to the lands belonging to the harbour board. If a board wishes to carry out tidal work, it requires parliamentary authority because the seabed belongs to the Crown and the harbour work extending into tidal waters interferes with the rights of navigation.
It appears that the Aberdeen harbour board relies for its powers on the provisions of the Aberdeen Harbour Confirmation Act 1960. It may be relying on section 69 of that Act, which confers power on the board
on or in relation to any lands for the time being vested in them or in relation to any other property belonging to them leased, let, hired or loaned to the Board.
Notwithstanding the wide wording of section 69(1)(a) of the Act, it says that the powers apply only to the land and may not be exercised in tidal waters. It seems that any tidal work and development in the Aberdeen harbour before and during Mr. Turner's tenure as general manager may have been carried out unlawfully and should have been investigated by the Secretary of State.
I shall deal with some of the matters raised in the new petition of the Aberdeen harbour board after the public inquiry. It repeats what was said in the earlier petition and at the inquiry. In paragraph 4, the Aberdeen harbour board admits that the commissioners have found in favour of the order. Why can it not accept the report by the appointed parliamentary body, which gave it a full hearing? If the Aberdeen harbour board suggests that the order is wrong in principle, Mr. Turner's evidence did not prove that. On the contrary, he made a case for it, as can be seen from his cross-examination by counsel and the commissioners.
The theme of the new petition is based on many statements that are not new, and I shall deal with some of them. First, there is a complaint about the non-existence of the national dock labour scheme, which the Aberdeen harbour board said would give Peterhead an unfair advantage over Aberdeen. The national dock labour scheme has been in existence since 1942, and this is the first time that Aberdeen has suggested that it is adversely affected.
It became clear from Mr. Turner's evidence to the inquiry that he wanted to be rid of the scheme in Aberdeen because it was killing the fishing trade in that harbour. Some 67,000 boxes of fish are landed each day—Monday to Saturday—at Peterhead compared with 3,400 boxes at Aberdeen. That includes 428 boxes that have been consigned from other ports in Scotland. As the Peterhead order is mainly for the fishing vessels, there should be no need to prove the case further.
In addition, it was clear from Mr. Turner's evidence that fishing is responsible for only 10 per cent. of the revenue at Aberdeen harbour. That must be a serious loss-making operation, and it proves the evidence brought out during the public inquiry that the fishermen are voting with their feet and staying away from Aberdeen.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) seems to think that he is in the Chamber for a laugh. He never comes in for a serious debate. It would serve him better in his position in the shadow Cabinet if he listened to what is said by hon. Members.

Mr. John Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
It will be most interesting to know how much of the total loss at Aberdeen is accounted for by the loss-making fishing trade. Mr. Turner was unable to give that information when he was pressed by the chairman of the commissioners, who suggested that he was trying to steal the fishing vessels away from Peterhead.
Paragraph 7 of the new petition submits that at Aberdeen harbour and elsewhere in Scotland more than

sufficient harbour facilities already exist, which are better located and well suited to meet the requirements of the type of shipping that could be expected to make use of the facilities that could be afforded by the proposed work. The simple question is: where and how suitable are they? My constituency covers the largest fishing area in the United Kingdom. There are nice harbours at Portsoy, Whitehills, Banff, Macduff, Gardenstown and Fraserburgh. Fraserburgh did not oppose the confirmation order although it would have had most to lose from it. All those harbours are efficient and busy. Fraserburgh commissioners have just promoted two parliamentary orders in the House for increased fishing and grain facilities.
None of those harbours could cope with the trade that is carried out at Peterhead and none has the same difficulties as Peterhead in accommodating the fishing vessels that use the harbours. Mr. Turner in his evidence stated that half a million tonnes of traffic would be at risk if the Peterhead order is approved. That is the total traffic passing through Aberdeen, and it is farcical to make such a suggestion. In cross-examination, Mr. Turner accepted that that was all guesswork, scaremongering and had no foundation—[Interruption.] Look at the record.
If, as Aberdeen's petition states, there are adequate facilities there and in other ports, why did Mr. Turner tell the inquiry that the board has plans for further extensions costing millions of pounds over the next 10 years? Is that just another reason for his opposition to the Peterhead proposals, with the Big Brother attitude—"Don't do as I do, do as I tell you"?
On the matter of the grain trade, I shall confine myself to the latest figures from J R Crabtree, which are an update on the Entwhistle report that was referred to at the public inquiry. Between August and March 1984–85, Peterhead handled 143,079 tonnes compared with Aberdeen's 9,089 tonnes. In April, Peterhead had 7,687 tonnes and Aberdeen had nil. In May, Peterhead had 3,146 tonnes and Aberdeen had 5,889. In June, Peterhead had 553 tonnes, Aberdeen nil. That brought the total for the period to 154,565 tonnes for Peterhead and 14,978 tonnes for Aberdeen. In the current period, covering August, September and October 1985, Peterhead and Aberdeen had no grain traffic in August. In September, Peterhead had 14,042 tonnes, Aberdeen nil. In October, Peterhead had 31,395 tonnes, Aberdeen nil. For those three months, Peterhead had 45,437 tonnes of barley exports, Aberdeen nil.
It is interesting to compare other ports which, according to the Aberdeen harbour board, handle barley exports. In the same period for the 1985–86 totals, Montrose handled 20,570 tonnes, Dundee 9,738 tonnes and Leith 18,467 tonnes. Therefore, it is clear that neither Aberdeen nor any other Scottish port can match Peterhead for the handling of barley for export. That fully justifies the Bill.
Oil-related works were also mentioned in the new petition. Much discussion took place at the public inquiry about what Peterhead might do in the future which could affect Aberdeen. Mr. Turner was not prepared to say that Peterhead had no intention of taking on any oil-related work. That was made clear by Mr. Tom Buchan, the chairman of the Peterhead trustees, in his evidence to the inquiry. In his evidence Mr. Buchan said:
Well, as far as the trustees are concerned there is a gentleman's agreement, an operating agreement between the two bodies that we don't touch oil vessels—we have had many approaches over the years from various companies to use the


fishing port as an oil base and that has been refused, and I see no reason why the Peterhead harbour trustees should change their mind in the future.
If that was not a good enough undertaking for Mr. Turner and the Aberdeen harbour board, apparently nothing will satisfy them in their efforts to thwart the passing of the Bill.
I refer to Aberdeen harbour board's plan for a Peterhead harbour extension, which it said would be acceptable. I have with me some drawings, which I now exhibit to the House. I was unable to bring the whole bundle to the House because it is more than 3 ft in length. Those drawings were presented by the Peterhead harbour trustees to the public inquiry. They were accepted by the commissioners, who reported back to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The drawings were compiled by the trustees' consulting engineers. I am sure that the House will agree that it does not require an experienced person to see that they involved a great deal of time and money. As I said, those drawings were considered and approved by the commissioners at the public inquiry.
I also have a cutting from The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper that is circulated widely in Scotland, especially in the Grampian region. It is dated 25 October and headed, "Harbour plan unveiled." It is a report from Mr. Bob Kennedy, the fishing editor. The article states that the Aberdeen harbour board unveiled plans for an alternative scheme to that proposed by the Peterhead harbour trustees. The drawing illustrated in the article is all that has been issued. No technical details have been set out, nor were prior consultations held with the Peterhead harbour trustees. Mr. Tom Buchan is quoted in the article as saying:
It is a bit like me having a garage plan turned down by the planning authority and then my neighbour presenting me with his own ideas.
Mr. Turner, general manager of the Aberdeen harbour board, suggests that it was endeavouring to help, not hinder; but in the article he goes on to admit that ideally Aberdeen harbour board would not want a new development at Peterhead and that it had used considerable expertise to prepare the alternative plan. As none of the harbour trustees at Peterhead has seen the scheme, other than in The Press and Journal article, let us look at how expert it is.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has not the hon. Gentleman put his finger on the problem? At the initial inquiry, and since then, despite determined efforts by Aberdeen harbour board, the Peterhead trustees have never been allowed to see the alternative scheme. I have evidence from the Peterhead trustees' parliamentary agents that no agreement could be reached. Would it not be better if the trustees looked seriously at the scheme instead of dismissing it in a cavalier way, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing?

Mr. McQuarrie: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have checked thoroughly. The Peterhead harbour trustees were not advised of the scheme until they saw it in The Press and Journal on 25 October. There has been no discussion on the matter.

Mr. Malone: This is an important point. If I am called, I shall make the point that Aberdeen harbour board has

been keen to compromise. I do not want my hon. Friend to be wrong on a matter of fact. The question was put by the general manager of Aberdeen harbour board to Mr. McCrae, the clerk to the Peterhead harbour trustees, at the meeting in London with the two sets of parliamentary agents, and it was dismissed out of hand at that stage. That was in October or the early part of November.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. However, my information is that no discussions have taken place between Aberdeen harbour board and Peterhead harbour trustees. They are the people who are affected.
Aberdeen harbour board unveiled a plan, and the newspaper article was presented to Mr. Stanley Anderson, the consulting engineer to the Peterhead harbour trustees, as the trustees were willing to look at it, although the information was scanty.
After those investigations, the following points must be made. First, it was proven during the public inquiry, after careful consideration, that the Peterhead trustees' scheme would not interfere with tanker manoeuvrability in the Bay of Refuge. That was accepted by the commissioners.
Secondly, the width of the structure proposed by Aberdeen is such that the storm waves will be reflected straight back into the Bay of Refuge, reaching a possible height of 20 to 30 ft, which would render navigation by fishing and commercial vessels hazardous.
Thirdly, the alternative plan for width would be too narrow to be anything other than a vertically faced structure. It would act as a mirror reflecting the full energy of the waves back into the Bay of Refuge, again causing severe problems for the fishing and commercial vessels.
Fourthly, the Peterhead trustees' proposals took full account of those dangers, as can be seen from their scheme, where the proposed jetty is much wider and has a curved end to prevent unacceptable wave motion within the new harbour and render the existing south harbour free of any wave motion. The Aberdeen harbour board proposals do neither. They are defective in that the wave motion would be considerably worsened in the existing south harbour. That factor was established after extensive tests carried out by Mr. Anderson, the consulting engineer, on various shapes and forms of harbour layouts at the hydraulic research station at Wallingford.
Fifthly, it is obvious that no real thought, never mind the considerable expertise claimed by Mr. Turner, has gone into providing an alternative proposal to that of Peterhead. Nobody in his senses, having spent £250,000, as the Peterhead trustees have done, in the preparation of drawings, models, site investigation, design, hydraulic testing and many other operations, would consider a 3 in by 3 in illustration in a daily newspaper a suitable alternative to that produced by the Peterhead trustees.
For those reasons, it is right that the ridiculous alternative proposals should be rejected by the Peterhead harbour trustees. Even Mr. Turner is quoted in the article as conceding that they had already been dismissed as not being cost-effective by the clerk to the Peterhead harbour trustees, Mr. Colin McCrae.
Paragraph 12 of the new petition seeks to have the Bill referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. In parliamentary discussions arising out of motions to refer confirmation Bills to a Joint Committee, it has been established that such a course should be followed only where a good prima facie case has been


made that there have been grave errors in procedure or a serious miscarriage of justice before the commissioners, or that new or material facts have emerged. Since the present procedure was introduced, on the passing of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1899, only twice has such a motion been successful—in the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Act 1904 and the exceptional Lothian Region (Edinburgh Western Relief Road) Bill this Session.
In the Leith case, the commissioners had denied an objector a locus standi and it appeared that there was a denial of justice. As is well known, the Edinburgh case has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee. Peterhead harbour trustees, the promoters of the Bill, do not think that there is any legitimate reason for referring the Bill to a Joint Committee. The new petition of the Aberdeen harbour board merely raises matters that have already been argued or could have been argued before the commissioners at the public inquiry.
Due to the pressure of time, I have been able to deal only in part with the necessity of giving a Second Reading to the Bill tonight. At present, unemployment in Aberdeen is only 5·6 per cent., compared with 13·9 per cent. in Peterhead. The development will create many jobs during the construction period and some permanent jobs on completion. It will mean a safer harbour for the fishermen, who require our support, when one considers the dangerous calling that they follow.
For that reason, and for others that I have mentioned, I ask my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support Second Reading of the Bill and to reject the petition by Aberdeen harbour board to refer the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My intervention in the debate will not be brief, although it had been my intention to be brief. I gained the impression from the speech of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) that the hon. Gentleman thought that this matter should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. However, as the hon. Gentleman said that he had no intention of agreeing to such a proposition, the Opposition obviously have a duty to persuade the hon. Gentleman that even at this late hour and as the debate continues within its time limit, he ought seriously to reconsider his position on that point.
It is right that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should argue his case on behalf of the Peterhead authority. I was tempted to say on behalf of his constituency, but from the evidence and the correspondence that hon. Members have received, I think that the hon. Member would concede that there is some controversy in his constituency about the proposed development. The argument between the Peterhead harbour authority and Aberdeen harbour authority has far wider repercussions than the harbour at Peterhead and the port at Aberdeen.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman has said that there are considerable problems in my constituency. Will he elaborate upon those constituency problems?

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman should not put words into my mouth. I did not say that there were considerable problems in his constituency. When he reads Hansard

tomorrow he will see that I understand from correspondence that I have received that there is some controversy in his constituency about the development. I did not say that there were considerable problems.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred to the controversy that surrounds the proposal to develop Peterhead harbour in an area which the harbour authority does not own. The area is owned by the Peterhead bay authority. The matter of ownership is one of the major differences between the developments that have taken place over the years at Aberdeen and the proposed development at Peterhead. The developments at Aberdeen have taken place in an area that is owned by the authority carrying out that development whereas the Peterhead trustees do not own the land where the proposed development will take place.
I honour and respect the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is entitled to argue on behalf of the proposition for the Peterhead authority. I was interested in the points that he made in seeking to reassure the householders in the proposed development area about the skyline of the buildings to be constructed if the developments and the proposed road network went ahead.
The hon. Gentleman said that the road network would have to be approved by Grampian regional council and the planning consents affecting the skyline and other matters would have to be approved by Banff and Buchan district council. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that that would be an automatic fait accompli; if the residents accepted the development, the planning authorities would take care of the residents' interests in planning considerations.
After 15 years in the House of Commons dealing with such matters both on a constituency and a national level, it has been my experience that it is pointless to put too much faith in the outcome of a planning application. I would not want to put a great deal of emphasis or stress on such an assurance because no planning authority would give any assurances before a planning application was submitted. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan does not have grounds to pursue that point on that basis.
On a lighter note, it was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to Mr. Tom Buchan. The hon. Gentleman said that the Aberdeen harbour authority's approach to the matter was like Mr. Buchan having an application for a garage rejected by the planning authority and his neighbour then suggesting an alternative proposal. I have news for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. I do not know what happens in his part of the world, but in Falkirk, East that is a regular feature of garage construction. The two neighbours get together and arrange a compromise. That is what we are trying to do today.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan skated over the very important point of Peterhead harbour's record on the export of grain. I was tempted to intervene and ask the hon. Gentleman why, if Peterhead harbour is operating so well and efficiently at present, it should want to spend £13·2 million. That was the estimated cost in March 1984 but obviously that will have risen since then, as one can see the final costs of civil engineering jobs over the years outstrip estimated planning costs. I do not understand why the Peterhead planning authority wants to spend that sum if, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan claims, it is operating exceptionally well.
The only reason for the authority wishing to spend that money is that it wants to attract more traffic from other


ports. I know that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will say that the harbour authority wants to spend that money to provide a safer refuge for the fishermen who steam into Peterhead harbour. I am in favour of making the sea and the refuge as safe as possible for the fishermen, but I cannot accept that the development is solely for the safe passage of the fishermen who use the harbour. I suspect that in his heart of hearts the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows that.

Mr. McQuarrie: I did not say that the development was intended solely for the fishermen. I said that it was primarily for the fishermen. The hon. Gentleman, who has had ministerial experience, must accept that the vessels in the harbour line up six, seven or eight deep and that there is a serious risk of overcrowding in the harbour. That risk justifies the harbour commissioners in asking for an extension primarily for the fishermen and to make the harbour safe. I do not dispute the fact that the proposal would make the harbour safe. The prime purpose of the Bill is to assist the fishing vessels and to make the harbour safe.

Mr. Ewing: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I suspect that the alternative proposal by the Aberdeen harbour authority would make the harbour safe primarily for fishermen, as the hon. Gentleman says. There is another element involved, and that is that the development would attract additional traffic. The authority is seeking to increase the facilities of the harbour to allow vessels up to 10,000 tonnes into the harbour. It is clearly essential to attract additional traffic to obtain a return on a proposed investment of £13·2 million.

Mr. Malone: If the proposal was intended to benefit fishermen in the first instance, it seems odd that the proposals put before the commission included a roll-on/ roll-off facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has said that the fishermen are voting with their feet, but I do not think that even that novel concept requires a roll-on/roll-off facility.

Mr. Ewing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Whether the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the Peterhead authority like it or not, there is grave discontent about the way in which the commission conducted the inquiry. It cannot be right for one party to be able to take the commission on a tour of the area and to submit its evidence without cross-examination.

Mr. McQuarrie: That is not true.

Mr. Ewing: It is clearly recorded in the documents that the Peterhead harbour authority was never cross-examined. The chairman, Lord Hughes, allowed no cross-examination of the authority itself as distinct from its witnesses.

Mr. McQuarrie: Mr. Tom Buchan, chairman of the harbour trustees, was questioned and cross-examined. His evidence is contained in papers 15 to 80 of the record. The words "T. S. Buchan cross-examined" are there for all to see. Mr. Buchan gave evidence and was examined by Mr. Osborne and cross-examined by other parties including the chairman. I quote just one example:
"The Chairman: If all the parties produce documents, if you finish up with 10 the Objectors will start with No. 11.

That is just one of the chairman's comments to Mr. Buchan in cross-examination. The hon. Gentleman should get the facts right.

Mr. Ewing: The cross-examination of witnesses is the function not of the chairman but of those representing the objectors. One of the unsatisfactory features of the inquiry was the attitude of the chairman—I say this in the friendliest possible way to my old friend Lord Hughes—to those seeking to object to the proposition. I leave it at that, but the deep dissatisfaction and discontent that it has caused is just one of the reasons why the matter should be submitted to a joint Committee of both Houses.
It would be wrong for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to try to convince the House that the commission conducted the inquiry satisfactorily because it did not. Indeed, that is a salient difference between the 1904 Leith tramways case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and last week's western relief road case. In the latter case, there was no complaint about the commission of inquiry, but there was certainly a complaint in the 1904 case and there is a complaint in relation to the present case which should be taken into account when the House makes its decision today.
There is a much broader issue involved. As I have said, one might easily gain the impression that this was a private battle between the Aberdeen harbour authority and the Peterhead trustees, but nothing could be further from the truth. We need look no further for evidence than the barley export comparisons made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan between Peterhead and the Forth ports. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention the significant fact that the EEC Commission recommended to the inquiry that there should be no extension of harbour and port facilities in the United Kingdom. As Scotland is included in the United Kingdom, that was a salient feature in the investigation. If the project were allowed to go ahead it is clear that there would be serious repercussions for the Forth authority ports. At the last count, there were some 21 harbours around the coast of Scotland involved in those exports.

Mr. McQuarrie: Give us the facts.

Mr. Ewing: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would afford others the courtesy and respect with which the House listened to his comments. He should sit quietly for a minute and listen to what others have to say.
There has been a dramatic change in the export of goods from Scottish ports in the past five years, and the extension of facilities at Peterhead will merely aggravate the problem. I hope that I shall not bore the House if I give some figures. Five or six years ago, 75 per cent. of all exports with manufacturing origin in Scotland were exported through Scottish ports—the Clyde authority ports, the Forth authority ports and ports in other areas of Scotland, including one non-scheme port. Peterhead is not the only non-scheme port in Scotland. Now, only 25 per cent. of all goods with manufacturing origin in Scotland are exported from Scottish ports. The reason is the introduction of the grid system, to which the Government have turned a blind eye despite my constant efforts to make them come to terms with it.
Under the grid system, the shipowners—not the Government or the exporters—pay for the transport of exports by road from any part of Scotland to the non-scheme port of Felixstowe. A good example is whisky


which is manufactured in Perth but taken by lorry free of charge down to Felixstowe. The reason given is the long steaming distance to Scottish ports, but the Government fail to appreciate that the grid system is leading slowly but surely to the closure of the Scottish ports and that as soon as that result is achieved the system will be removed and the exporters will have to pay the road haulage costs. Among all the threats to the prospects of Scottish industry I can think of none more damaging than the inability to use our own ports for the export of our manufactured goods.
Gartcosh is in the news. I do not intend to go into detail about it, but 48 per cent. of the cargo going out from my port of Grangemouth is finished steel products from Gartcosh—finished steel products for export to the German car industry. If Gartcosh closes, we simply could not replace that dry cargo let alone allow a development at Peterhead which may take away more. Grangemouth is also a port which is used to ship to the Shetlands and other islands.
The Bill has far wider repercussions that appear to be appreciated by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I must say this as gently and as kindly as I can, but I simply do not accept that the Peterhead harbour trustees can blandly assure us that they will not take cargo from anybody else. It may be Christmas, but we do not live in a fairytale world. The Peterhead harbour authorities will be as much in competition for exported goods from Scotland as Grangemouth, Leith, Dundee, Aberdeen or any other port.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If the scheme went ahead and Peterhead harbour did not increase its revenue as much as possible by increased trade, Peterhead fishermen would pay a heavy price. What would the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan say then?

Mr. Ewing: That is a very important point. It emphasises what I am trying to say about the viability of this investment at Peterhead. It could not be supported by fishing alone. There are no ifs and buts about that. This investment of £13·2 million at 1984 prices, now possibly in the region of £17 million, could not be supported simply by fishing. If that is true and the House accepts it, support for this investment must come from somewhere else.
It is the somewhere else that concerns us. There is uncertainty about where the investment will come from. There is uncertainty about all that will flow from a decision to allow this development to go ahead without further examination. That makes me strongly favour reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and on that I will cast my vote tonight.

8·2 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): On these occasions when confirmation Bills are contested there can be a general misunderstanding about the Secretary of State's role and responsibilities. As we have heard tonight, the Opposition, and especially the official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), can take a fairly broad view. I am sure that hon. Members will be under no illusion about the Secretary of State's function. The House will know that this is purely formal in relation to the introduction of the Bill and of our proceedings tonight.
Perhaps I might go back a little in time to set those remarks in context. Under the Private Legislation

Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, where a provisional order under that Act is opposed, as is the case here, an inquiry is held before the commissioners. This inquiry takes place in Scotland at or near the place which is the subject of the powers which are sought.
Promoters and objectors, represented by council, appear before the commissioners and lead evidence. After the hearing the commissioners recommend to the Secretary of State, in the form of a report, that the order should be issued or should be rejected or should be issued with modifications. In this case the commissioners, sitting at Peterhead, hearing the arguments put forward, recommended that the order should be confirmed, with some small modifications.
If an order is then issued by the Secretary of State, as it has been in the present case, it is submitted to Parliament in the form of a confirmation Bill, which once approved by Parliament is regarded as a public Act. The Secretary of State's role so far is a formality.
In theory, the Secretary of State could decline to accept the recommendations of the parliamentary commissioners, but it has been the practice to honour the undertaking given during the passage of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1933—consolidated in the 1936 Act—that the Secretary of State would treat such recommendations with the greatest respect and would not, save in exceptional circumstances, set them aside. Therefore, in submitting to Parliament an order which has been the subject of an inquiry, the Secretary of State is not to be regarded as expressing a view on the merits of the order. My right hon. Friend is enabling the appropriate parliamentary procedure to take place.

Mr. Robert Hughes: May I refer the Minister back to the original confirmation Bill. I refer especially to an answer that he gave about the publication of confirmation Bills. He said that he would not normally publish confirmation Bills until such time as a transcript of all the evidence was available to those who had an interest. Why did that procedure not operate in this case? The original confirmation Bill was published some months before the transcript was publicly available.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that he put a parliamentary question to me on this. He is also right to say that my answer suggested that that was the normal practice—that the transcript of the evidence should be available. I understand that this is not of necessity the case, but it has been the normal practice. Under section 8(3) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, my right hon. Friend is required to introduce a confirming Bill
as soon as conveniently may be".
Obviously, in those circumstances, where there is some difficulty in getting the transcript—the hon. Gentleman is aware that there were certain difficulties in transcribing—there must be a balance of judgment struck by my hon. Friend to decide when he chooses to introduce the Bill in order to conform to his statutory obligations. It was in the light of that that the Bill was originally introduced by my right hon. Friend in July of this year.
I should make one or two general points. It is our legal practice in this country that those who wish to build harbour works, which might interfere with the rights of others, should have statutory powers, usually quite specific, to do so. In the present case the trustees of the harbours of Peterhead, which is where the fishery traffic


is accommodated, wish to extend their harbour facilities to the southward by creating new quays and berthing spaces. I understand that these facilities are intended primarily for commercial, that is non-fishery, traffic. The trustees maintain that these new works will have a beneficial effect also on their handling of fishery traffic. The financing of the proposed works is a matter for the trustees.
The confirmation Bill has been the subject of inquiry by colleagues in this House and from the other place. They have recommended, having listened to the evidence, the order for confirmation by means of a Bill, and it is on that basis and in accordance with precedent that it is before the House tonight.
In relation to the motion to refer to a Joint Committee, perhaps it would help the House if I were to explain the position as I understand it. There is a power under section 9 of the 1936 Act to refer the matter to a Joint Committee, if a petition against the order in the Bill has been presented before the period of seven days after the introduction of a confirmation Bill. I understand that a petition was presented in form and in time by the Aberdeen harbour board.
Although it has been usual not to refer confirmation Bills to a Joint Committee, that practice or precedent was overturned two weeks ago by the decision to refer the Edinburgh Bill to a Joint Committee. It is for the House as a whole to decide what to do in relation to a confirmation Bill under the private legislation procedure, including reference to a Joint Committee. I would not seek to advise or direct the House in that regard. As with the Edinburgh Bill, the Government are neutral, and I trust that the House will accept that we have fulfilled our responsibilities in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I rise on the insistence of the Dundee port authority to ensure that this matter is fully ventilated. I have had the privilege of visiting Peterhead harbour. I found the trustees' work building up the harbour for fishermen superb. I hope that nothing that we do today will hold up those necessary improvements to make the harbour safer for fishermen.
I should like to put in a cautionary word. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has already made it clear that there are broader implications in these developments than appear at first sight. The very fact that hon. Members who represent ports throughout the east of Scotland are present suggest that the matter is more controversial than was originally thought.
I do not oppose the general upgrading of Peterhead harbour, but I wonder whether its impact on other east coast ports has been considered properly. There is a question mark over the Commission chaired by Lord Hughes. It is remarkable that, after such a commission of inquiry, several organisations still feel that their arguments have not been examined properly and fairly.
The port of Dundee has a wide variety of harbour facilities which are well suited to the requirements of the types of shipping that could be expected to use the facilities afforded by the proposed works. As the roll on/ roll off proposal has already been struck out by the Hughes Commission, I should like to focus attention on the accommodation and loading of grain vessels with a

carrying capacity of 10,000 tonnes. Dundee port authority believes that the proposed work would not generate any new business, but rather that it could erode existing trade at Dundee and other major Scottish ports without contributing to the economy of Scotland as a whole or to that of Grampian and Tayside regions.
The port of Dundee currently exports more then 50,000 tonnes of grain a year in consignments ranging from 2,500 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes. The port owns two grain elevators with a loading capacity of 200 tonnes an hour and a further two elevators with a loading capacity of 80 tonnes an hour. It can accept and load vessels with a 10,000-tonne capacity. Peterhead and Dundee draw such traffic from separate hinterlands, with the exception of grain drawn from intervention stores. It is estimated that, from that source, there will be occasional cargoes from 10,000 tonnes to 15,000 tonnes capacity. That grain will not be collected from a restricted area of about 35 miles from a port, but will be collected from anything up to 150 miles from a port. The subsidy given by the intervention board makes it economic for the haulier to collect from a much greater distance. That is an echo of the grid facility which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East described. The port of Dundee and other major Scottish ports can already cope with the trade. The port's worries remain despite the work of the Hughes commission.
A scheme port has certain financial obligations which by statute it must fulfil. Such obligations do not necessarily arise from the operation of the port. They frequently—and most often do—arise from other ports. The National Dock Labour Board levy for administrative purposes is 2·75 per cent. of the port employer's gross wages and, in addition, there is a severence levy of 4·75 per cent. of the gross wages. Unfortunately, the pattern in our ports recently has been the rundown of manpower. That would happen if Peterhead went ahead without such financial obligations, and it would have an unfair advantage over other ports.
I hope that we do not have to vote down the whole proposal, because there is much in it, such as what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said about the need to take care of fishermen's interests, with which the House agrees. However, we must protect our own people's interests. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned unemployment. I have to tell him that unemployment in Dundee is running at 16·5 per cent. Male unemployment, which includes dock workers, is considerably higher. In view of the general dissatisfaction and the need for a fair hearing, it would be best if the matter went to a Joint Committee of both Houses so that it can be examined with fresh eyes. If the Joint Committee accepts the order, I would accept it. I merely require the matter to be ventilated in the interests of my constituents, so that it is clear that they will not be disadvantaged. We wish Peterhead well.

Mr. McQuarrie: I should like confirmation of what the hon. Gentleman said. Did he say that he would accept the ruling of the Joint Committee?

Mr. Wilson: Yes. My port authority is worried that the matter has not been considered closely enough. If the order is upheld by a Joint Committee, I would accept it and not inhibit the scheme going ahead. In view of the tremendous disquiet in the House and in my area about the proposals, the subject should be referred to a Joint Committee.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I respect the views of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). He must put his constituency case strongly. I do not object to that. However, I wish that he would not present the case in such a way as to make it appear that those of us with a strong interest in Aberdeen harbour are not behaving in a proper parliamentary way. We have a right to look after the interests of our own port and to consider the wider issues.
This is not a party issue. I am speaking purely with my constituency hat on as many of my constituents work in Aberdeen harbour or depend for their livelihood on the harbour in one way or another.
There has been some argument about parliamentary procedures and propriety. It seems that people in the Peterhead area have been given the impression that the parliamentary inquiry is the beginning and end of the democratic process and that no other means are open to them. They have been given the impression that they must accept the inquiry's findings and that to challenge them in any way is undemocratic. That is not true.
The inquiry is the beginning of the parliamentary process. Our debate tonight is the second part of that process. Other parliamentary processes follow. Some of the aggravation could have been prevented if the Secretary of State's office had handled the original confirmation Bill properly. The Secretary of State was aware of my interest in the parliamentary inquiry.
So that there should be no doubt about how the Aberdeen harbour board should proceed, and to further its objections, I advised it to write to the Secretary of State to find out how to lodge a petition. The Secretary of State's private secretary wrote to the general manager of the harbour board describing the procedures and explaining how, once the Bill had been published and read the First time, seven days were available to lodge a petition. Because of a strange coincidence, a lapse by the Scottish Civil Service or a deliberate act, the day before the Bill was published the Secretary of State's private secretary wrote to the general manager and neglected to tell him that the Bill was to be published the next day.
One could argue that the Aberdeen harbour board was lax. It did riot imagine that the Bill would be dealt with so quickly. When I was telephoned, only by chance did I look at the Order Paper to discover that the Bill was due for its Second Reading. I had not been advised that the Bill had been published. Perhaps I was lax, because I could have been more vigilant by looking at the Order Paper every day. Whatever the reasons, the normal courtesies were missing, and as a result the opportunity to deal with the matter properly in the last Session was missed.
There is nothing new in Back Benchers seeking to block confirmation Bills and to refer them to Joint Committees. There is nothing new, novel, arrogant or malevolent in that. It is wrong to say that we are seeking selfishly to guard the areas which we represent and to destroy Peterhead's capacity to develop. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We want a development at Peterhead that will satisfy the original objectives, which were to provide a safer harbour and some improved facilities for cargo traffic. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan cannot have it both ways. In his anxiety to show the need for development, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the percentage

unemployment for Peterhead compared with Aberdeen. Percentages mean nothing. I accept that the percentage figures for Peterhead are serious. I do not deny that they are much higher than they are for Aberdeen. However, many more people in Aberdeen are unemployed than in Peterhead. It shows the depths to which this Tory Government have driven us that we have to talk about percentages and job losses in Aberdeen compared with Peterhead. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is saying that more people will be employed in Peterhead as a result of the South bay development, it must mean that Peterhead is looking for more traffic.
The hon. Gentleman's attention was diverted earlier during my intervention. Perhaps when he has finished his walk he will listen to what I am saying. The hon. Gentleman said that the Peterhead harbour trustees were not looking for increased traffic. He said that there was a gentleman's agreement not to take oil-related work and that the board did not want to poach grain trade from other ports. The development must be paid for. If the new scheme is to be viable, additional revenue must be raised to pay for it. If increased revenue is not generated by additional traffic, it will be necessary to increase costs to existing port users. If that happens, the first person to be on his feet complaining will be the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, because the fishermen will have to pay more.

Mr. McQuarrie: The Peterhead harbour trustees make £1 million a year profit, mainly from fishing vessels. I made it clear that the development is primarily for fishing vessels. Many fishing vessels would like to use Peterhead harbour as their home port, but are prevented from doing so because of problems within the harbour. The fishing vessels are the main problem, not the grain. An undertaking has been made that no oil-related work will be taken on. In cross-examination, Mr. Buchan made it clear that the harbour trust had enough financial resources and approved backing to provide all the money required for the development.

Mr. Hughes: That last remark might one day haunt some people. We do not know the exact cost of servicing, and we do not know what will happen. There is no doubt that the depth of water required for the proposed development is intended to generate increased traffic. Assumptions about where the cost will fall are serious.
I appreciate why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan keeps moving round the Chamber, but I would appreciate it if his ideas did not move as well. We are receiving different signals about his intentions later this evening. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said he hoped that he would not be driven to vote against the Bill. I hope that I am not forced to vote against it. The matter is in the hands of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. He is in control of events. On his attitude depends how the Bill proceeds.
I enter a cautionary note. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman does not proceed far with the Bill this evening he may discover—as he might at Heathrow airport—that the plane has lost its place in the queue for take-off and that there may be a long delay. If the delay is too long, he may lose altogether. He must have a care that he does not lose his place in the queue for take-off and that his objective that the development at


Peterhead should come to fruition is not lost because he has misjudged the mood of the House, tactics or the future. He will obviously have to take those into account.
One other matter of real contention is how far the alternative scheme has been considered and the stage of development that it has reached. The hon. Gentleman had a bit of a laugh about the article in The Press and Journal. He said that it published a 3 in square photograph of the development. To ask the House to believe that that was the sole available information on the alternative development is stretching credibility too far. An alternative scheme has been devised and tested on the hydraulic model. It has been found to satisfy the stated objective of the proposed new development. Such a scheme would have been acceptable to all the petitioners, although it fell short of the ideal compromise. That has been under discussion for some time. The fact is, as was admitted in evidence, that the Peterhead harbour trustees have never considered the options, and they have never been put in front of them.
I hope that the matter will not be decided simply on the word of either Mr. McCrea or Mr. Turner. We are not having a gladiatorial contest. This is a serious matter. We have the Peterhead harbour proposed scheme and the alternative schemes on the same scale. They are all produced in exactly the same form. If the matter is to be satisfactorily resolved, by far the best way is to allow a reexamination before a Joint Committee. If that were done, the matter could be examined, counsel could put the case, engineers could be cross-examined about the various schemes and we could come to some objective analysis.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to allow the matter to go to a Joint Committee, where there can be a proper and free examination. That should be done with goodwill, not simply as an exercise to buy time. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, is an honourable man, so I hope that we can look at the matter seriously. We want to see that reasonable developments are carried out. If those developments are to proceed at the quickest possible rate to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the fishermen, and to the joint satisfaction of those who represent other constituencies, and if a compromise can be agreed on, well and good, but let us have the matter thoroughly thrashed out.
I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman reads the brief that he has been given by the Bill's promoters—that is perfectly fair—just as he, I am sure, would not disagree with my right to put the brief put to me by my constituents. However, he is not in a position, and nor am I, to know for certain about wave heights and all the technical details that he began to go into. I trust Mr. Turner, the manager of Aberdeen harbour board, who is an engineer. There is no harm whatever in the matter being properly examined, and I hope that in everyone's interests the matter will be disposed of in the best possible way. That is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman. I ask him to accept my goodwill and that of others, and I hope that he will take that into account. I hope that Peterhead, too, will take that goodwill into account and will not wake up tomorrow to find that our goodwill has not been taken properly into account, because in the end it is Peterhead that will suffer.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to support the Bill. I do so because as a Conservative I believe that competition is good for the customer. As a party we believe that it is right to encourage competition, and that every effort should be made to encourage competition which leads to efficiency and a better service to customers.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) had to say. If I understood him correctly, he was critical of the parliamentary commission. I think I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was also critical of the way in which the matter had been handled.
It is becoming fashionable this week to criticise bodies that have been set up to conduct inquiries into Scottish affairs. If some hon. Members do not like the decision of a body, whether it is the parliamentary commission or the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, they attempt to have the matter retried. They do not seem to care about the merits of the case and whether they have been examined properly and fully by a parliamentary commission, as in this instance, or by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
I draw your attention to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Member for Falkirk, East drew attention to the link between Gartcosh and Grangemouth and the effect that any improvements at Peterhead may or may not have. There is no doubt that that was his clever way—he is good at it and he does it fairly well—of bringing in a topical argument. He and I both know that a parliamentary commission is set up in the knowledge that it is not a high court but an endeavour to find some kind of parliamentary view and the facts.
We may not like what the parliamentary commission has done in this matter. It is true that the chairman of the parliamentary commission was one of the hon. Gentleman's noble friends. One can presume that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with his noble friend. I imagine that he is equally unhappy with the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.
The need to improve the harbour facilities to make the harbour safer for those who presently use it would, I imagine, obtain support from all corners of the House. There seems to be substantive evidence that there are too many boats alongside each other, certainly at weekends, at times when the tidal and wave conditions present a real hazard in the harbour.
Here we have a harbour that is efficient and profitable, making profits of about £1 million a year. That profitable harbour wishes to expand. It is incredible that any Conservative should object to that. We spend so much time in the House considering how we can help the lame ducks of the world and improve their lot, and all too often we do not invest in success. Here is a successful harbour which, by all accounts, is the premier white fish harbour in the United Kingdom. The figures appear to confirm that. There is some common ground in this matter.
Although people may say that there are alternatives, they may not give the trustees the harbour that they want to take them into the next century. An investment of this magnitude is not for this year or next year, but for many decades ahead. It is only right that the trustees should consider changes that may occur, and the ships, directly or indirectly related to fishing, that may wish to use the harbour.
People may say that a berth that will take 10,000 tonnes is not necessary. I do not know about that because I am not a professional seaman. Yet if some years ago someone had said to me that the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth would not be plying the high seas today, I would have thought that they were talking nonsense. Those ships appeared to be the last word in seafaring. Who can say which ships will be directly or indirectly connected with fishing in the future?
There have been remarkable changes in the fishing industry. For example, off the west coast ports substantial Soviet vessels are carrying out various activities—I think that "factory ships" is the term used to describe them. I believe that the trustees have been responsible and prudent. I understand that originally they put forward proposals for a roll-on/roll-off facility, but then withdraw it. That does not surprise me because Dundee recently introduced such a facility which, I understand, is not—at this stage—obtaining the business for which it had hoped. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to include that facility at Peterhead—

Mr. Malone: I must put the record straight. The parliamentary commission amended the scheme to remove that facility. It was not removed at the request of the trustees. That puts a wholly different complexion on the matter.

Mr. Walker: I was fishing, and the fish rose to the bait. All that we hear is criticism of the commission. I wanted someone to say something good about it—so I am delighted that it has come from a hostile source.
We are trying to get at the facts, not opinions and views. The fact is that the commission is much maligned. It has no friends. I am doing my best to be friendly, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South for his intervention. I know little about this sort of fishing, but I have experience of other sorts of fishing. I know that if I throw the right bait, a fish will often rise when it is not rising for other bait.
Why are there so many objections to the scheme? It cannot be that there are fears that the harbour will be used by oil supply ships. After all, they are using an adjacent bay. It cannot be because there are fears that Peterborough will steal the fishing business of Aberdeen. We know from what has been said this evening and on other occasions that Aberdeen's fishing business is now 10 per cent. of its total business. Why are we meeting so many problems?
It is surely significant that a neighbouring harbour, Fraserburgh, does not object to the proposals even though it has similar business interests. It is a busy port, not far from Peterhead. The fact that it did not object to the proposals must tell us something. It did not object because it thought that it was a sensible scheme for the busiest port in Scotland.
The fishermen know something about risks and about the way in which they must invest for the future. They are looking to the trustees to provide them with safe harbour facilities. I mean not simply somewhere to put their boats, but all the necessary facilities of the quayside and all the necessary modern equipment that will meet the needs of a modern fishing fleet for the next 10, 20, 30 and 40 years. The proposals can only he beneficial.
Because Peterhead harbour is not part of the dock labour scheme, it is possible that it is looked on unkindly in certain quarters. As a Conservative, that does not worry

me because I know that often the places that are not run in a manner that calls for any state supervision or that are not run in a way that suits out-of-date doctrine, are much better at doing the job. There are examples of that along the east coast. If Peterhead is to become an even greater success story than it is, I for one believe that this House should clearly say that the Bill commands our support on the merits of the case.
I do not ask the House to support the Bill on the basis of opinion. I do not suggest that it supports the Bill because the trustees will consult the regional authority about roads and so on. Everyone knows that, at the end of the day, the scheme must obtain planning permission, and regional authority support must be given for road networks. There is nothing odd about that—it happens with almost every project. Even the great design schemes of the Scottish Development Agency and other bodies require the co-operation, help—

Mr. Ewing: Not the enterprise zones.

Mr. Walker: I was very careful not to mention enterprise zones. I know something about the enterprise zone in Dundee. I shall not rise to the hon. Gentleman's bait—he cannot land me with that.
I accept that planning permission is not always required, and in some areas planning permission is simply a courtesy. Even if it is not granted, the scheme will still go ahead. However, Peterhead does not fall into that category. A proposal is being brought forward in the normal way, under the procedures by which we make changes to harbours. Even if the House agrees to the proposal, which I hope it does, the local authorities must be consulted to ensure that the scheme is in accordance with what they wish. I have no reason to think that Grampian regional authority is any different from Tayside, with which I deal and which is always helpful towards private enterprise schemes.
There have been suggestions that Peterhead is wrong to seek to engage in anything other than fishing activities. However, Peterhead has already become an important port for the export of grain and other bulk cargoes. Why should it not export those goods if it is the port that customers want to use? That is the important point. There is another small port on the east coast of Scotland, at Perth, which is no longer in my constituency. That port is also interesting. It was developed against the trend because it is well up river, but customers wanted to make use of it.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason why Peterhead has expanded its grain trade is that the people in the hinterland find it the most accessible port, and that they are saved the 35-mile journey to Aberdeen port if they can go to Peterhead or Fraserburgh, which is the adjoining port in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend and I would not argue about choice, and customers being able to choose which port they want to use.
In any other area, if a successful organisation has generated capital and wishes to invest it and expand, there would normally be crowds of people demanding that we allow it. In Scotland, we want firms that provide employment and create export opportunities. If any firm came to the House and said, "We are not looking for public money. We generate profits and from them we can find the


necessary finance to go ahead with our programme," I would be surprised if many hon. Members spoke against it.
What, then, makes harbours different? Historically, we have dealt with harbours differently from other industrial areas. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East shakes his head, but I cannot think of many instances where the House considers legislation of this sort.

Mr. Ewing: I was trying to restrain myself from interrupting the hon. Gentleman. In this case, the difference is that the Peterhead trustees want to develop an area which they do not own. We do not need to deal with other harbour extensions, improvements or expansions in this way in any other part of Scotland, because the port authorities own the area that they wish to develop. The hon. Gentleman is missing the major point that the Peterhead trustees want to develop an area which they do not own.

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention which spells out the matter clearly. However, I hope that he will agree that I was saying that harbours have been treated differently historically, and that we are considering a successful operation which wants to expand into an adjacent area. There is nothing wrong with that. Airports do it all the time and railway stations have done it. There are precedents, although not in recent times. At one time special legislation was needed to deal with railway stations and lines.
Similarly, we are considering a successful harbour run by trustees who wish to provide a better service for those in the hinterland, and to invest in facilities in the quayside that will provide modern grain-loading equipment of the highest order. The harbour board sees wooden-hulled and steel-hulled vessels siting along the quay wall in conditions that create hazards for the hulls, particularly wooden hulls. One does not have to be clever to realise that in some conditions hulls become vulnerable, and that that is not wise because harbours are supposed to be places of safety.
If one links that with the bulk and the grain facilities, it is clear that the harbour board's proposals, which have been examined by the parliamentary commissioners, are realistic and should be accepted. They will get rid of the congestion at present in the harbour, will provide better loading facilities, and will generally make the harbour better for the customers—the fishing vessel owners who want to use Peterhead harbour. I hope that the House will view the matter on its merits, and not from a narrow constituency point of view because that is not in the best interests of private interests or customers.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As I represent an area between Aberdeen and Peterhead, I have constituents who work at both ports and I have people interested in both harbours. My remarks seek to secure the best balanced development of the ports in north-east Scotland. I do not wish to see any port seriously held back from development.
At this stage, there is sufficient cause for anxiety to warrant a reference to a Joint Committee of both Houses

of Parliament. Indeed, a letter from the British Ports Association to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) makes the point succinctly. It states:
The British Ports Association do not wish to express any views about the merits of this Bill or the issues raised in the enclosed statement
from the Aberdeen Harbour Board.
They do, however, suggest that it is most unfortunate that a responsible harbour authority should feel so strongly that the arguments against the development proposed in the Peterhead Harbours (South Bay Development) Order have not received a fair hearing. For that reason, we would ask you to consider whether it would not be expedient for the Aberdeen Harbour Board's petition to be referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament so that this difficult matter can be looked at again.
That is the view of most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Clearly, there is a serious point at issue which must be resolved.
The simple statement of the entrenched position of the extremes of either side will not bring the matter forward. A fair and reasonable assessment that there is a genuine difficulty must be made. The detailed submission from the Aberdeen Harbour Board does not merely take issue with points of fact, but shows an element of bitterness, which the House would wish to address properly. In one or two areas, the board feels that it has legitimate grievances which have not been fully dealt with.
Much has been made of the cost. An investment in excess of £13 million is no little sum, especially if that sum is merely to achieve the creation of a safe, less crowded harbour for fishing boats. No one will deny that investment is needed to secure safety and more space, but £13 million-plus is a great deal of money simply for that.
There are two ways to repay that investment. The first, on which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has already touched, is that the users of the ports and the trustees will have to raise money to repay capital. Two obvious ways can be used. One is to ensure that the greater efficiency in the fishing harbour results in the generation of more revenue from fishing. It is probably asking a lot to think that that will be enough to fulfil the whole cost. What is more, there is concern that the fishing boat owners will find that their costs rise significantly to pay off the costs of the capital.
Much more likely is that the Peterhead harbour authority, having got excellent facilities with a wide range of versatile and alternative uses, will go out to get in extra traffic to generate the extra revenue. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has rightly pointed out the success of Peterhead harbour in attracting other traffic. I am pleased to see that success and if I were persuaded that this scale of development is needed to enable the essential and normal development of the harbour, I might accept it.
However, a compromise has been proposed that will meet all the potential expansion needs of the growing traffic through Peterhead without creating a major new harbour on the east coast that will be in competition immediately not only with Fraserburgh and Aberdeen but with Montrose, Dundee and the Forth ports. It is worth reiterating what the EEC's findings were. The official journal for 31 January said that the port facilities in north-east Scotland already have surplus capacity and utilisation of the existing facilities is only around 50 per cent. It clearly points to one port going ahead only at another's expense, and it questions the contribution of new port projects to the region as a whole.
A question has to be asked and answered. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will no doubt have a positive answer. The question is where, if the expanded Peterhead harbour goes for new business, it will come from. If it is to come from new business that is not available to the existing ports, a closer investigation would wish to consider that. If, on the other hand, it simply draws it away from the other ports in the area, a major investment that does not create new employment or benefit has been made.

Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to make the case that the EEC has decided that there should be no further increase in facilities at ports in the north-east of Scotland, can he relate that to Mr. Turner's evidence to the commission that, for the next 10 years, Aberdeen harbour will spend millions of pounds in developing its facilities?

Mr. Bruce: There are two distinct points. I was quoting the EEC, but what is happening in Aberdeen harbour—I recently visited and toured both harbours—is investment in improving existing quays, clearing buildings, putting in better facilities and reorganising existing facilities to meet modern needs and technologies. The two things are mutually exclusive. I make it clear that I am not suggesting that there is no case for anything to happen at Peterhead harbour and that it should not be allowed to make investment to improve its facilities. Every hon. Member who has spoken recognised that Peterhead is ready to expand in that way. There is a difference in scale, timing and implication of these proposals.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North alluded only briefly to the existence of the dock labour scheme. This is not the time or place to discuss the scheme at any great length. However, the hon. Member said that the development should be encouraged on the ground that it creates competition. Whether or not we like it, the dock labour scheme is a restraint on competition. It matters not what a person's political views are—we have to accept that the basis of the dock labour scheme was to guarantee dockers work, and that ensures that the scheme ports have a cost. If the scheme exists, we have to accept that it is the basis of operation. Nothing will be done about it, but both the commissioners and the House should take notice of it.

Mr. Ewing: It is important to put on record the purpose of the national dock labour scheme. It was introduced in 1944 to replace the old casual labour scheme whereby men went to the docks in the morning and were sent back up the road with no work within half an hour. The scheme does not exclude competition—far from it, it guarantees the men a day's work and wage and replaces the casual labour scheme under which they had no such guarantee.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) but, as I said earlier, I do not think that this is the time to develop that point. However, I accept his contribution for the record. My point is that a port scheme port has a different basis of operation than a non-port scheme port. Given that a parliamentary commission is investigating the developments in a non-scheme port, it is legitimate to recognise its impact on other ports that are not operated on the same basis. I want the ports in the area to be developed, but the development of one port at the expense of another needs to be examined closely.
The Aberdeen harbour board's submission points to the extent to which it feels that its case has not been given a fair hearing and to the fact that its arguments have not been fully developed. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was somewhat dismissive of the Aberdeen harbour board's compromise proposals. I do not presume to comment in detail on their merits, nor am I qualified to do so. However, I take seriously the submissions of a body that has been involved in port engineering for more than 40 years and that puts forward a scheme as a serious, constructive alternative. Such a scheme is worthy of consideration and it was put forward, I know, in good faith.
It would not be wrong to say that the Aberdeen harbour board would prefer Peterhead to do nothing at all; it would prefer no development to take place at Peterhead. That is not my view and I do not believe that it is the view of most hon. Members who are taking part in the debate. However, the board recognised that that view was unlikely to carry very much weight. It was too introspective and too self-interested. Therefore, it recognised from the outset that at best it would need to secure a compromise. However, it feels that the Peterhead harbour commissioners have not been willing to respond to its compromise proposals.
It states that the promoters have put forward a scheme which, if it were fully utilised, would allow them to compete with Aberdeen in all the major areas of port activity in which Aberdeen is concerned, not just in those areas where there is a small overlap. For example, it pointed out that one part of the new scheme could be used as an oilfield supply base. My understanding is that the Peterhead harbour trustees have said that that is true but that they would be prepared to give an honourable undertaking not to use it as an oilfield supply base.
There are two problems. If my earlier point about the financial pressure on Peterhead turned out to be true and the expansion of the North sea activities that is hoped for in the future were to continue, the temptation might become too strong and, if it were there and had the potential, the facility would be used. The Aberdeen harbour board said that a binding agreement that the facility would not be used would be acceptable to it, if it underpinned the gentleman's agreement that the Peterhead harbour trustees were prepared to give. However, it was unable to secure a binding agreement. Therefore it is left with a nagging concern that at some stage or another the entrance to the inner harbour at Peterhead will be used as another supply base. Peterhead is a major competitor of Aberdeen as an oil field supply base. Indeed, the south side of the Peterhead Bay of Refuge is probably the best oilfield supply base in the country, as it was custom built. Therefore, this is a point of legitimate concern.
The point at issue on the specific compromise proposals is that the harbour board feels that the proposals have been dismissed. I said earlier that the Aberdeen harbour board would probably prefer the Bill to be stopped altogether. During the next few minutes the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) will have to consider on behalf of his constituents whether he wants the Bill to be killed or whether he wants a compromise to be secured. That is the danger he runs. It is important that he should seek to represent his constituents and to use his judgment and parliamentary skills in deciding how to secure the best outcome for his constituents.
The point that was made about the compromise proposal was that it was put forward by those who know


something about harbours. They believe that it could meet all of the Peterhead harbour trustees' objectives. It would be considerably cheaper but it would not create a port that offered the same threat to the existence of other ports in the area as it is believed that the proposed development will pose. Although this scheme was discussed, it was never fully considered, and the chairman of the Peterhead trustees is on record as saying:
Peterhead Harbour Trustees have never considered these options, they have never been put in front of Peterhead Harbour Trustees.
That alone warrants a referral of the Bill to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, because that alternative needs to be looked at before we can be sure which is the right and fair scheme that should go ahead.
These proposals should not be viewed in terms of Aberdeen versus Peterhead. I would not be representing the interests of my constituents if I supported such a duel, because I have constituents who work at both ports. My wish and objective is to see two strong, healthy, expanding ports to the north and south of my constituency. To that extent I do not wish my remarks to be judged in terms of Aberdeen versus Peterhead.
The harbour board in Aberdeen is dearly anxious to secure a compromise. Most hon. Members who have spoken want to see a Joint Committee examining this matter. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan holds out for the whole Bill, he runs the serious risk of getting no Bill at all. That is also the risk that the trustees run. The hon. Gentleman should make his own judgments on behalf of his constituents and should recognise that there is good will for Peterhead harbour on all sides of the House. There is a desire for a fair and just outcome. I hope that he will take that on board and will support reference to a Joint Committee.

Mr. Gerald Malone: It is worth considering referral to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I should put it clearly on the record that, although I have a close constituency interest in this matter, no campaign is being waged either by myself or the Aberdeen harbour board to kill the Bill. Indeed, the Aberdeen harbour board has always been prepared to talk about compromises and it has put forward an alternative scheme.
The sad truth has been that for their own reasons, and perhaps acting on their own best advice, the Peterhead harbour board trustees have decided not even to talk. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) should bear in mind that this compromise has been offered and that it could best be discussed in a Joint Committee of both Houses.
On an occasion such as this, when there is such an overwhelming expression of the views of hon. Members, and when this is perhaps the best device by which to settle the issues between the parties, it would be unfortunate if that avenue of approach were not accepted by my hon. Friend.
Opposition Members are right to say that this matter broadly lies in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. If he is unable to tell me that he would like to adopt that line of approach, I would accept that because it is not my wish that the Bill should not get a Second Reading. However, Opposition Members will be

only too well aware that the procedures of the House are such that one is perhaps obliged to adopt a line of approach that is not ideal in all the circumstances.
I repeat to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that the matter is in his hands and nobody else's. He has to represent not only one section of the community in his constituency; he ably and vociferously represents all points of view. However, some expressions of opinion in his constituency have not been in favour of the scheme.
There has been much disquiet about the way in which the parliamentary commission conducted its proceedings. When worries have been expressed on the Floor of the House, publicly and in the media it is important and proper that the House should consider the substance of those complaints and should consider the request for a referral to a Joint Committee. I do not suggest that, because we have to search far back into history for one example of a referral and to last week for another, we should simply say that the procedure should not be brought into play or that the practice has fallen into desuetude. Perhaps it is a shame that it has not been used more often to consider matters of this kind. There is genuine disquiet about the way in which the parliamentary commission conducted its affairs and that disquiet centres on several points.
Some of the implications of the inquiry's report were a little strange, as were the imputations cast on some of the evidence. One point that has not been raised in any detail is safety, which was considered by the commission. Important evidence on behalf of the Department of Transport was given by Captain Fellingham. I do not understand Lord Hughes' statement when he says:
We took into account the report of the Department of Transport and the statement of Captain Fellingham which unlike the evidence of other witnesses was neither made on oath nor subject to cross-examination.
That would appear to impugn the captain's evidence. However, what is not explained is that that is the normal procedure when departmental representatives give evidence to parliamentary commissions. Some aspersion has been cast on the fact that Captain Fellingham properly did not submit himself to examination and properly did not go on oath. If there was an impugnment of his evidence, and there would appear to have been so if one reads the statement of the noble Lord, we are right to consider whether that coloured the commissioners' judgment when they reached their conclusions. I suggest that it should not have done so.
Opposition Members have already mentioned the tour of Peterhead harbour by members of the commission and the fact that there was no opportunity for others to cross-examine on that evidence and no other representatives were present. It is odd that a parliamentary commission seeking to take evidence and to be independent should proceed in that way. A procedure that is akin to the tour of Peterhead harbour and is common practice in court proceedings in Scotland is known as a view. Some hon. Members will be familiar with that procedure. If the sheriff or those trying the case decide that it is important to examine the locus, all parties traipse off to the view. They go to see what the facts are on the ground or, as in this case, in the water.
In that judicial process, all parties and their representatives must be present. If that criterion is considered essential by the courts, a similar procedure


should have been seriously considered by the commissioners. Perhaps they did not take a completely independent line when considering one of the most important pieces of evidence.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. He said that objectors and their counsel were not allowed to take part in the tour by the Commission. In fact, all the objectors and their counsel took part in the tour of the area of the proposed works.

Mr. Malone: I must disagree with my hon. Friend; that is not my information. We must judge the sources of the information put to the House, but representatives of Aberdeen harbour have made the point vigorously to me and it seems to have been made vigorously to Opposition Members. My hon. Friend did not challenge the point when it was made by, I think, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and it is odd that he should choose to challenge it now.
My hon. Friend has an opportunity to concur with the will of the House, which is to have the matter investigated further. I do not intend to kill the Bill, but my hon. Friend must know the procedural risks that he is running. He would not be happy if he had to say that the Bill had been lost. I concede that the Peterhead harbour trustees are perhaps entitled to their legislation in an amended form and I should be sorry to see the opportunity lost.
The Court of Auditors of the European Commission reported in 1984 on the investment of about £15 million of European funds in port facilities throughout Scotland, and particularly in the north-east, over the previous 10 years. In its report to the Commission, the court said that port facilities in the north-east of Scotland were 50 per cent. under-used. The Commission had been investing not in port facilities that were necessary to cope with existing traffic or in port facilities that might be needed in the foreseeable future, but in port facilities which were substantially redundant. That fact is abundantly clear.
Not only European funds have been invested in ports in the north-east of Scotland. A substantial number of harbours in the area are maintained and supported by Grampian regional council, to the tune of £400,000 a year. In examining the economic case put by the promoters, we have to consider whether the facilities already provided in the north-east, substantially by public funds, will be used even less than they are at present.
I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). If the Peterhead harbour trustees decide that they will spend this money and put forward this proposal, good luck to them. The trustees say, "Of course, it is our money. There will be no further call on public funds."
I draw the attention of the House to the history of this matter, because we need to go beyond the past six or seven months to note the intent of the Peterhead harbour trustees. When the proposals were initially considered, the Peterhead harbour trustees wanted a substantial injection of public cash to make the project possible. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan will not mind if I refer again to that well-known national organ, that most worthy paper, that accurate reporter of local matters in the constituency of my hon. Friend, the Buchan Observer, which has been quoted so lavishly with great success. An article on 11 September 1984 stated:
Aid refusal angers harbour board".

Of course the Peterhead harbour board trustees were not looking in September 1984 to fund the project from private funds—they were looking for public funds of £12 million, which they were not given by the Scottish Office. That was right. Mr. Buchan, the chairman of the Peterhead harbour board, reacted by saying:
No way can we accept this without kicking up a helluva row about it.
I am surprised that the board was not relying on private funding then and I suspect that it is not relying on the prospect of private funding now.

Mr. Bill Walker: Surely my hon. Friend must write this down as a success for the Conservative Government. Is this not what we have been trying to do for so long—stop people bleeding the public purse? Yet my hon. Friend is complaining!

Mr. Malone: I am certainly not complaining about that. I believe that, if the scheme is approved, we shall not have heard the last of the claims on the public purse for support. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North would agree that, if these funds were required in September 1984, they may inevitably be required again. I hope that my hon. Friend, who seems to know so much about this matter, will bear in mind the fact that the first time the Peterhead harbour board trustees called for a detailed economic analysis to be made public on this matter was April 1985 when a Coopers and Lybrand report was prepared and submitted in evidence. It is odd that a scheme that has been more than a gleam in the trustees' eyes for a substantial period should suddenly be subjected to a form of economic analysis.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give the wrong impression about the Coopers and Lybrand report. I am sure that he will accept that the Peterhead harbour trustees were obliged to obtain a report from Coopers and Lybrand because the public inquiry had not been presented with anything on the subject of development.

Mr. Malone: The trustees were required to obtain a report because, until then, they had no idea of their economic case, except that they were looking for grants of £12 million from public funds. The Coopers and Lybrand report, which is a rather strange and scanty document containing many highly conditional conclusions and an economic analysis that is highly conditional with respect to much of the revenue that the trustees say will accrue if the changes are successful, is a little unlikely to prove true. It gives the game away, because, no matter how much my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan may say that the primary purpose of the development at Peterhead harbour is to improve the lot of fishermen, increase the safety of the fishing vessels and provide them with a safer harbour, if he reads the report he will find in one of the appendices of the economic analysis that the trustees are counting on increased revenue from cargoes brought into Peterhead harbour to fund the scheme if it were to be granted. It may have been represented to my hon. Friend that the main interest was to improve the lot of the fishing fleet. Of course, Peterhead harbour will look for more business beyond what it says is the purpose of the scheme—it will not look just for increased cargoes.
A gentleman's agreement was offered by Aberdeen harbour board when Mr. Turner gave evidence to the


parliamentary commission. He said that he would be perfectly happy to accept an undertaking that there will be no increase in oil-related activities in Peterhead harbour. The commissioners decided to ignore that and hoped that Mr. Turner and the Aberdeen harbour board trustees would simply rely on the gentlemen's agreement. The Coopers and Lybrand report suggests that the Peterhead harbour board trustees are looking to go further than they say they intend, and I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan that in the circumstances it is difficult for Aberdeen harbour board trustees to attach tremendous credibility to any statement that the Peterhead harbour board trustees may make about the credibility of relying on a so-called gentlemen's agreement.

Mr. Donald Stewart: In fairness to the trustees, surely the hon. Gentleman does not think that any harbour board would construct a harbour and confine it to fishing vessels. Obviously, it will go out of its way to make it as viable as possible. Whatever the arguments against the board may be, surely it cannot be faulted on those grounds.

Mr. Malone: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I accept that, if the proposal goes through, the board will use all its facilities as much as it can. The board is saying that that is not so. That is the point that I am trying to make.
What the board is seeking in the Bill goes way beyond any reasonable assumption of what it might require. I was interested to note that it has decided to seek a power to dredge in excess of 1·5 m more than it was seeking when the case was put before the parliamentary commissioners. We have to look carefully at the proposal. In Peterhead harbour it would be possible to berth the largest vessels if the power that the board is seeking in the Bill were exercised. There is no need for that. The board goes beyond its stated aim, and that is one more fact that suggests that it does not intend to stick to its declared intentions.
When the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) intervened, I was about to refer to the goodwill of Aberdeen harbour board. On its behalf, I must rebut the suggestion that has been made in the House that it has been intransigent and has not been prepared to listen, and put forward an alternative scheme in the most casual manner. An article in The Press and Journal and a small sketch were referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. I say this with no malice to him, but I should like him to hear it. Aberdeen harbour board put forward the suggestion, in detail, to its counterparts in Peterhead, or at least it attempted to do so, and met with a rebuff. When I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech, I said that it was my impression that a meeting had taken place with Mr. Turner of the Aberdeen harbour board—

Mr. McQuarrie: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 53.

Division No. 27]
[9.35 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alton David
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.


Amess, David
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)





Blackburn, John
Jessel, Toby


Body, Richard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Kennedy, Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Knox, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Lambie, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Lang, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Latham, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Butler, Rt Hon Adam
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lord, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McCrindle, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Cash, William
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maclean, David John


Conway, Derek
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Coombs, Simon
Malins, Humfrey


Cope, John
Marlow, Antony


Corrie, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Monro, Sir Hector


Dorrell, Stephen
Moynihan, Hon C.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Murphy, Christopher


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Evennett, David
Newton, Tony


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Normanton, Tom


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fookes, Miss Janet
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fox, Marcus
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Freeman, Roger
Pawsey, James


Freud, Clement
Portillo, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Price, Sir David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rifkind, Malcolm


Greenway, Harry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Ground, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Waddington, David


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Wainwright, R.


Harris, David
Wallace, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Waller, Gary


Hickmet, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Hind, Kenneth
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Hirst, Michael
Wilson, Gordon


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Winterton, Nicholas


Howells, Geraint
Wood, Timothy


Hubbard-Miles, Peter



Hunt, David (Wirral)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hunter, Andrew
Mr. Albert McQuarrie and


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mr. Bill Walker.


Jackson, Robert



NOES


Barnett, Guy
Ewing, Harry


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
George, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clelland, David Gordon
John, Brynmor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dalyell, Tam
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Dixon, Donald
Marek, Dr John


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Michie, William






Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Patchett, Terry
Torney, Tom


Pike, Peter
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. Robert Hughes and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Gerald Malone.


Strang,Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Question put:—That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 87.

Division No. 28]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Barnett, Guy
Hanley, Jeremy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Howells, Geraint


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lamond, James


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Hugh


Clelland, David Gordon
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Malone, Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Ewing, Harry
Radice, Giles


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rogers, Allan


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Spearing, Nigel


Freud, Clement
Strang, Gavin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


George, Bruce
Wainwright, R.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wallace, James





Winnick, David
Mr. Gordon Wilson and



Mr. Malcolm Bruce.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Amess, David
Holt, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hunter, Andrew


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Jessel, Toby


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Blackburn, John
Kennedy, Charles


Body, Richard
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Knox, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lambie, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Latham, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lord, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Buck, Sir Antony
Maclean, David John


Butler, Rt Hon Adam
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Butterfill, John
McQuarrie, Albert


Carttiss, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Conway, Derek
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Coombs, Simon
Monro, Sir Hector


Corrie, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Crouch, David
Normanton, Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dicks, Terry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Pawsey, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Powley, John


Evennett, David
Price, Sir David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Rhodes James, Robert


Favell, Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fookes, Miss Janet
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fox, Marcus
Speed, Keith


Freeman, Roger
Spencer, Derek


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Greenway, Harry
Thurnham, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Waller, Gary


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Warren, Kenneth


Hanley, Jeremy
Winterton, Nicholas


Harris, David



Hickmet, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Hind, Kenneth
Mr. Bill Walker and


Hirst, Michael
Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Question accordingly negatived.

To be further considered upon Wednesday 18 December.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Education (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maude.]

Orders of the Day — Education (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair]

Clause 1

INCREASE OF LIMIT ON EXPENDITURE APPROVED FOR EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANT PURPOSES

10·2 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out '1 per cent.' and add '.75 per cent.'.

The Chairman: With this we shall discuss amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 11, at end add 'in 1986–87 and 0·5 per cent. thereafter'.

Mr. Bennett: At this time of night the Committee will not want to spend long on the measure. The Bill is difficult to amend. Our main complaint is that it is irrelevant to the needs of the education service.
The Government must come up with a solution to the problem of teachers' pay and morale. The Opposition's most bitter complaint is that the Government are being provocative by introducing the measure at this time.
Our amendment is intended to probe the Government about their proposals. Amendment No. 2, which has not been selected, would seek to leave out the words "1 per cent." and insert "1·5 per cent." We do not favour the insertion of ".75 per cent." rather than "1 per cent." or any other figure, but we want to probe the Government about their intentions.
I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to make it clear that they are looking for a solution to the teachers' dispute and are not further provoking them, thus making them angry and disillusioned. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government do not intend to be even more provocative by introducing merit money without the teachers' agreement. If he does that, he will further anger and disillusion the teachers. Before he goes much further with the idea of merit money, he should look carefully at the response that will come from parents who will want to know what compensation the Government will give to their sons or daughters, or to them as parents, if a child finds that in his passage through primary or secondary school he is not taught by any teacher who is receiving merit money.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, I accept that I am a little wide of the amendment, but I hope that the Government will tell

us that they will not come forward with such unilateral measures. I had hoped that the Government would pursue an independent inquiry.
The first time that I was involved in industrial action was in the early 1960s when teachers questioned whether lunchtime supervision was compulsory.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Bennett: Let me develop my case a little further.
As a result of that action, it was clearly established that lunchtime supervision was voluntary. Ever since then, the first stage in the withdrawal of good will has been to question lunchtime supervision. I also accept that many teachers have sought to get rid of the necessity to volunteer to carry out any lunchtime supervision.
What happens at lunchtime should be examined much more thoroughly than is possible under the Bill. Given the amount of money to which the amendment refers, it is not clear whether the Government have thought that out. If teachers do supervision at lunchtime, almost the only payment is the possibility of a free school meal. Who qualifies for a free meal and what school activities should be carried out vary from one authority to another.
I also accept that since the 1960s more and more local authorities have employed people to do lunchtime supervision which usually covers supervision of the meal, the playground and around the school buildings. The only person who has a legal duty, other than the employed supervisors, for discipline and behaviour within the school is the head teacher and, to a certain extent, the deputy. Considerable resentment has been caused by the fact that since May nearly all lunchtime supervision has fallen on head teachers, their deputies and the paid supervisors, if the local authority employs such people.
The Government are now introducing a new proposal which would be welcomed by teachers' unions if it were being introduced during a period in which there was goodwill in schools when teachers were happy with their pay and conditions. In introducing it against a background of lack of co-operation from the teachers the Government will cause far more problems.
I think that everyone would agree that it is important that teachers have a proper break at lunchtime. Many people would say that during the past nine months teaching has improved because most teachers have had a proper break at lunchtime. It is important that teachers get half an hour or so at lunchtime, but in the good schools many school activities should be flourishing during the lunchtime. Schools with a long lunch break allow the teacher to have a break and also be involved in supervision. The Bill fails to address itself to the real problems of what is supervision and what is teaching during the lunchtime period.
The Government chose to put 1 per cent. in the clause and the amount of money that that represented, but they do not seem to have thought carefully about the difference between lunchtime teaching and supervision.
Is it the Government's intention that teachers, or anyone else, should be paid for carrying out educational duties at lunchtime? Examples of that are choir practice, preparation for school pantomime, various club activities, examination revision, sports practice and so on. If those educational activities are managed well, a large number of pupils will participate and therefore receive supervision during the lunch break.
If teachers are not paid for those educational duties, it is possible that they will not resume them when the dispute has ended. I hope that those activities will be resumed, but the authorities must state clearly the possible uses of the money provided for in the Bill, and the relationship between those looking after pupils and those carrying out educational duties.
Is it the Government's intention that teachers should be able to claim for carrying out those educational duties? If so, what is the position if those same duties are carried out not at lunchtime but, for example, after school? It would be a major anomaly if a teacher could claim payment for supervising a choir practice at lunchtime but not for supervising after school. The Government must make that clear; they must specify what they regard as being or not being lunchtime supervision.
Will there be a standard minimum rate of pay under the Bill, especially for lunchtime supervision carried out by people other than teachers? The position of the head teacher and deputy head teacher must also be made clear. Will the head teacher still be responsible at all times if supervisors are employed? To what degree can that responsibility be passed on to a deputy head teacher? If the head teacher and deputy head teacher are not on the school premises—and this applies especially in primary schools—can a teacher act for them, and if so, will he be paid?
I hope that the Government have seriously considered whether the money provided for in the Bill will be genuine new educational money. Are the Government hoping that, in practice, that money will be offset by, for example, savings in supplementary benefit through the employment of part-time or casual staff? I am not suggesting that it is not desirable that people receiving supplementary benefit should, instead, have a job that provides them with a wage. I merely suggest that if that is the case, the money provided for in the Bill will not be genuine new money.
Do the Government envisage older pupils being employed for supervisory duties, and especially the use of sixth-formers in primary schools? I am sure that the Government are aware that older pupils are encouraged to work in shops. If the Government's Sunday trading proposals become law, there will be even greater pressure for pupils to work at weekends. It might be more desirable that pupils be employed in their schools or in junior schools rather than in shops that might press them to work longer hours, to the detriment of their studies.
What will happen in the small number of schools that have adopted a continental or short stay? Can any of the money be used to pay those carrying out supervisory duties after school? Many parents, especially those with young children, will face problems if schools decide to close at 3 pm or earlier.
Finally, before the measure is implemented the Minister must get agreement between the teacher unions and the local authorities so that there is some uniformity of provision across the country. I hope that he will answer some of my questions when he justifies the need for 1 per cent.

Mr. Clement Freud: I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that this is an irrelevant and bad

Bill. My amendment is a probing amendment. To be specific in my opposition to the Bill, I shall give three good reasons for the two amendments tabled and selected.
The first relates to the general dissatisfaction at the further inroads into the autonomy of local education authorities. On Second Reading and throughout the passage of the original legislation it was made clear that the Opposition did not dislike the idea of the Secretary of State having powers to fund his pet projects. We disliked the fact that that money should come from LEA funding, which is already earmarked for specific purposes, and which further erodes the ability of an LEA to impose a modicum of regional excellence on its programme. For that reason alone, it seems desirable to restrict such encroachment. If the Secretary of State wants to have separate contracts for lunchtime supervisors, he should pay for it from Government money, not money already earmarked.
My second reason for tabling the amendment is the confusion that persists after Second Reading about the money that will be used for supervision. The Government have still not satisfactorily explained why they can both pay for lunchtime supervision from the increased education support grant, and knock £40 million of the £1·25 billion offered to the teachers. On Second Reading the Minister said that the money came from sums
additional to our existing plans for educational spending.
I accept that the Government will pay for some of the supervision under the formula for ESG, but I do not accept that that means that £40 million should be clawed back from the £1·25 billion, because, as I understand it, that is the total to be spent and includes the LEA element. Will the Minister clarify that point?
Thirdly, there is a good case for applying the increase in ESG to the first full year only. The Secretary of State admits that there is spare money from the ESG this year, which is why he can pay for lunchtimes until April from the existing 0·5 per cent. He made that clear on Second Reading when he said:
In 1985–86 there is sufficient headroom within the existing limit to pay grant on this new activity."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 460–479.]
One wonders whether the same will be true in future or, at least, whether there will be some spare to render excessive the full 1 per cent.
When that fact is added to the claim that future years' payments will come from the 1·25 billion, we have justified cause for anxiety. Added to that financial question is the fact that to pass the Bill in its present form seems to anticipate failure on the part of local authorities.
We know that lunchtime supervision has been a bone of contention for a long time, but it seems dubious to pass a Bill when the negotiations are in abeyance and there is a possibility, albeit remote, of new machinery to deal with lunchtimes without this expedient.
The amendments matter because it is wrong to give a Secretary of State yet more control over local authorities for more and for longer than is absolutely necessary. It gives power in a way which gives more power than a good man should need or a bad man should have. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Mr. Pawsey: I am puzzled as to why the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) should describe this measure as a provocation. We are merely giving teachers


what they have been asking for for many years and I cannot see how that could be provoking. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will elaborate on that point at some time.
One of the great paradoxes of the educational scene is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced some measures to improve and—

The Chairman: Order. We are in Committee and are discussing a narrow amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to it.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall do my utmost to stay within the rules of order.
My right hon. Friend has introduced many measures to improve the educational performance of schools and thereby improve the quality of education for our children. This measure is cast in the same mould that—

The Chairman: Order. If I allow the hon. Member to follow that line, I must allow other hon. Members to put arguments either in support or rebuttal of the Bill, and that we cannot have. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall take careful note of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It would appear that there is less support for me on Conservative Benches than there usually is.
I was genuinely surprised that there was no warm welcome for the measure. It will generally assist education. I hope that I am not straying out of order, but it would seem that the Opposition are opposing the measure purely for opposition's sake and are not looking at the benefits—

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch my eye on Third Reading. His remarks would be more appropriate then than now.

Mr. Pawsey: I acknowledge the fact that the amount of funding available for the measure is admittedly small. Nevertheless, it would seem that it is adequate to cover its requirements and needs. As this point will no doubt be touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) when he makes the Government's winding up speech, I shall rest my case on that note.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): It is difficult to follow that contribution, but I shall do my best.
I hope that it will not disappoint the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) too severely when I tell him that we do not find it possible to accept the amendments to this small but helpful Bill. I was constantly reminded, both on Second Reading and this evening, of how difficult it is to do good in this world, but we are, as hon. Gentlemen will know, putting right something that has been frightfully successful for a number of years, and we should be given some credit for doing so.
I do not want to traverse once again all the arguments with which we dealt on Second Reading. On that occasion, I dealt with the argument put by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish about provocation and the other words that are generally regarded as synonymous with provocation, most of which he trotted out then and has trotted out since. Were I to do so, I should be repeating myself—[Interruption.] On the question of the dispute, perhaps I should once again make it clear, in case it is

necessary, that the Government want an early, fair and lasting settlement to the dispute, which will ensure that we do not again get into appalling difficulties, and the resulting damage which we have seen all to frequently in the past decade or so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will the hon. Gentleman do?

Mr. Patten: I should have thought that £1·25 billion is not chicken feed. That is on the table and would be regarded by most public sector unions as being the flexibility with which they could well do.

Mr. Bennett: If this is such a generous offer, why is it that the hon. Gentleman's charms have not persuaded the teachers to renegotiate?

Mr. Patten: It is not for me to comment on my charms. Perhaps none of us is perfect.
There has been some criticism both this evening and on Second Reading that we have not made available enough additional resources to provide for, adequate and reliable supervision.
Amendment No. 1 would in due course reduce the additional expenditure which could be approved in England and Wales to about £28 million. In our view, that would not be adequate for the purpose. The increase that it would allow would not be sufficient to provide for the £40 million which we have said we are prepared to approve for education support grant purposes in the coming financial year. The effect of amendment No. 4 would be that we could approve expenditure on midday supervision for ESG support only until the end of the financial year 1986–87. I do not believe that to be desirable. I understand the attachment of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to the block grant as a hallmark of local democracy and local accountability. That raises much broader issues, with which I hope we shall have the opportunity to deal on future occasions.
Our intention, in offering the ESG for midday supervision, is to encourage authorities to develop new arrangements. In that sense, as we have said before, it is a pump priming activity. We expect that once the new arrangements are fully established they can be funded through the rate support grant in the same way as is most education expenditure by local authorities. I imagine that this will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman. However, at this stage we cannot be sure how long it will take. In primary legislation it would be wrong to impose a time limit of this kind.
The increase that we propose will provide for the approval of an additional expenditure of £55 million in England and Wales in 1986–87. There is therefore likely to be a small amount of headroom as a result of this increase. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has given an undertaking—he did so during our Second Reading debate—that pending the outcome of the review of local government finance, an outcome to which we all look forward, approvals for activities other than midday supervision will not exceed the existing 0·5 per cent. limit in the 1984 Act. I am perfectly happy to repeat that undertaking to the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we envisaged paying for extra curricula work whenever it takes place during the day. The answer to this question is, as he


knows, in the negative. The overall work that is done by teachers must obviously be taken into account when determining their pay and considering their conditions of service. The sooner we deal with those things together the better.
When dealing with amendment No. 4 the hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship between the money that we are making available for lunchtime duties and the £1·25 billion. We have been accused of robbing teachers because the money for midday supervision will come from within the £1·25 billion that the Government have said that they are prepared to make available, if a suitable agreement upon teachers' duties and a salary structure can be reached. However, as has been said on almost more occasions than I care to recall, teachers have long argued for an end to the uncertainty over midday supervision. A resolution of this problem is bound to cost money. We made clear last August when we announced the £1·25 billion that it included a provision for new arrangements at midday. The remainder of the £1·25 billion continues to be available if the conditions for its release are met, but we are not prepared to give something for nothing. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Bennett: I am disappointed by the Minister of State's reply. He has thrown no new light upon the difference between supervision and teaching during the lunchtime period. The Minister must address that central problem. He is saying that the payment can be made if either a teacher or somebody else who is specially employed for the purpose merely stops pupils from getting up to mischief. In other words, he wants to ensure that pupils eat in a civilised manner at lunchtime and that after they have had their lunch they are looked after in the school building or in the school playground. If, however, somebody finds something that is educationally useful for pupils to do at lunchtime, the Minister doubts whether the money can be used for that purpose. That is the central dilemma of this approach. While most educationalists want teachers to get a break so that they can be refreshed for their teaching in the afternoon, they would also accept, particularly in schools with a fairly lengthy lunch hour, that it is possible to have a break and to carry out a role at lunchtime that is both supervisory and educational.
It is logical that teachers who are carrying out both an educational and supervisory role ought to be paid some of this money for doing so. Until the Government can answer that central problem, the proposals in the Bill will run into difficulty. I do not believe that the amendment would usefully alter the Bill in any way, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN REMUNERATION FROM REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS ACT 1965

Mr. Mark Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
'which shall only be paid after local education authorities have satisfied the Secretary of State that adequate additional training has been provided for supervisory staff'.

The Chairman: With this it will he convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
'(2) This section shall not have effect until national minimum standards on the level of supervisory staff have been established.'.

Mr. Fisher: These amendments seek to ensure that whoever undertakes lunchtime supervision in schools is properly trained and is working to national minimum standards of staffing.
The questions of training and staffing were both raised on Second Reading, but the Government gave no clear indication on either matter. Tonight they owe it to head teachers, teachers, parents, children and anyone who may undertake this work in the future to make their position clear and to give some answers, particularly on safety and discipline.
Safety and discipline are difficult enough for trained, qualified and experienced teachers, but for untrained people the problems they raise will cause grave difficulties for the quality and maintenance of standards in schools. The premise behind the amendments is that most of the staff undertaking this work are likely to be untrained. The National Association of Head Teachers has estimated that the sums involved will allow payments at the rate of approximately £2·75 an hour. Do the Minister's figures accord with that? If so, very few teachers will accept that payment, and it is highly likely that the staff undertaking this work will be untrained and working to levels of staffing that are not specified in the Bill.
The Minister's Department is ultimately responsible, along with local education authorities, for ensuring the safety of children in schools, through Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and the provision of trained, qualified staff to teach our children.
Schools are extremely hazardous places. They are full of complicated, dangerous and sometimes heavy equipment, as well as chemicals. Many modern schools are full of glass, and in the urban areas many of our older schools are full of railings. These are all potential sources of accidents, especially during the dinner hour. In addition to any playground accidents or accidents with equipment, particlarly PE equipment, there is always the danger of fire. Since the Education Act 1981 there is also the problem of dealing with children with special educational needs.
Will children with special educational needs in normal primary, comprehensive or high schools be suitably supervised at lunchtime by unqualified and untrained staff working to unspecified levels of staffing? Such staff may well be unfamiliar with the premises and the materials to be found on them. How will they cope? Many secondary schools are now very large. I represent an inner city constituency, yet a school that I visitd last week has 840 pupils. Although it is in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent, it has 13 acres of ground, and additional hazards arise from shops, roads and visits to the chippy. How will unspecified levels of staff, particularly untrained people who do not know these premises, be able to supervise lunchtime?
I mentioned earlier the problems of fire and children with special educational needs. The Minister will recall that a few weeks ago a special school at Fenton in Stoke-on-Trent burnt down. Fortunately, that was not during the dinner hour. If it had been, handicapped children would have had to be got out of the building by unqualified staff.


Is the Minister prepared to make any special provision for special schools? I am sure that he agrees that he has a particular responsibility to children with special needs.
Accidents are more commonplace, but how will unqualified staff cope with simple breaks and lacerations? I was amazed to learn from the North Stafforshire health authority last week that more than 100 children are admitted to the hospital casualty department in Stoke-on-Trent every week of the school term with lacerations and breaks. We are not accident prone; I am told that those are typical figures. Many more children suffer breaks, cuts and lacerations during the lunch break, and an onerous responsibility is being placed on staff who, if the Bill is not amended, will be working with no training and with unspecified numbers.
Who will be responsible for taking children to hospital? Will it be the head? What will happen if the head is off the premises, as the Bill allows him to be? What will be the levels of staffing and training? To whom will staff be responsible if things go wrong? Will they be responsible to the board of governors, to the local education authority or to the head?
What training do the Government envisage? Who will pay for the training? Who will set the standards of training? Will the Department of Education and Science get involved? What level of staffing does the Minister think will be necessary to ensure the safety of children? Will there be minimum national standards of training and staffing, or will it be left to each local education authority, with the Government saying, "You sort it out. It is your responsibility"? That would not be fair. The Government are changing the law and providing the money. They should be responsible for ensuring that staff are trained and that there is an adequate level of staff to ensure the safety of our children.
The problems of safety are containable compared with the less tangible problems of discipline. I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members will know that discipline is difficult, even in some primary schools, particularly in inner city areas. There is a narrow line between order and chaos, and between a good educational atmosphere and a shambles in the classroom or the playground. If the Minister had ever had to take charge of high-spirited teenagers, let alone more difficult and disturbed children, he would know that these are serious problems and that the skill of maintaining discipline is not easy to learn.
How will discipline work with untrained non-teaching staff? Will lunchtime supervisors have disciplinary powers? That question is not answered by the Bill. What synchronisation does the Minister envisage between the lunchtime supervisors and teachers and head teachers? Who will supervise the lunchtime supervisors? Who will ensure that there is continuity of discipline in school hours and at lunchtime?
What advice would the Minister offer to a dinner lady or lunchtime supervisor who is left in charge of a high school and is approached by a large 14-year-old lad who uses what can only be described as unparliamentary language to her? That is not a matter of jest, though it has made some Conservative Members smile. That would be an unfair and difficult situation for the supervisor. It would also be unfair to other pupils, and it would be detrimental to the standards of discipline in the school. What will a supervisor do if there are two outbreaks of disciplinary

problems and there is not enough supervisory staff to cope? The Bill does not ensure that there will be sufficient supervisory staff with adequate skills—staff provided nationally—to make sure that discipline is maintained.
I am sure the Minister will not deny that a breakdown in discipline at dinner time will have an effect on the whole of afternoon education in the school and could affect the quality and atmosphere of education in the school more permanently. I am sure the Minister will agree also that discipline is a vital ingredient in education and in the ethos of a school. Untrained supervisory staff of variable numbers, with unspecified guidelines, could have considerable problems and could do considerable damage to the school, to pupils, to staff-pupil relationships, to education and to standards in schools, which, rightly, the Government say they are seeking to improve.
I fear that the Government have not thought about any of these problems. The Minister agreed on Second Reading that they have not consulted any of the teachers' unions. I understand that the Government sent a note to the National Association of Head Teachers, but they have not indulged in any consultation. They have not thought the Bill through. They have not thought through the difficulties that the Bill will raise of training, staffing, appointing staff, the accountability of staff, the liaison that the staff may have with teaching staff and the position of the head and deputy head in relation to the staff. They have not even defined the lunch hour. I do not know how they have made their calculations without defining what they mean by a lunch hour. The Minister will know that a lunch hour varies considerably from school to school and authority to authority.
None of these problems has been considered by the Minister or his Department. In answering the debate on the first amendment, the Minister suggested that everything was quite simple and that it was a thoroughly uncontroversial Bill. The amendments reflect the difficulties that lie behind the unconsidered parts of the Bill. Even now it is not too late for the Minister to recognise that there are difficulties with the Bill. He would be wise to recognise them and to accept the amendments. I am sure he will agree that the Government owe it to parents and teachers to ensure that standards are maintained and that the supervisory staff in a school are properly trained and sufficient in number. The Government should set the standards, because they are introducing the Bill. They should set an adequate standard of training, and they should pay for the staffing that is proposed and for the training of the staff, to ensure that the staff are competent and efficient. Failure to do that will put schools and the standards within them in jeopardy.
The amendments are extremely constructive and give the Government the chance to improve the Bill by addressing the serious problems of safety, discipline and the quality of supervisory staff in schools. I urge the Minister to accept them and to improve the Bill.

Mr. Freud: The amendments are another example of concern that was expressed on Second Reading. It seems reasonable that if LEAs are to have to bid for ESG moneys, which is how the system has worked in the past, they should know what the rules are by which their bids will be assessed in future. I suggest to the Minister that he has not thought about this nearly enough. We do not know what he feels about ratios or the role of teachers, if any.


We do not know why he has rejected the idea of a national agreement. In a parliamentary answer which I received today—

Mr. Chris Patten: I am struggling to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments. A short while ago he was accusing the Government of being too centralist in their approach. He is now saying that we should not leave everything to local authorities. His arguments are confusing. On the one hand, he is saying that we are centralising too much, and on the other he is saying that we are depending too much on local education authorities.

Mr. Freud: My point was that the Minister had not thought. I received a reply today, containing a fair amount of waffle, to my question about ratios. It stated:
the sum of £40 million is not based on any single staffing ratio or rate of pay but the Government are satisfied that it will suffice to provide reliable and adequate supervision in schools in England and Wales.
The Minister has had the brilliance to pluck a figure of £40 million out of the sky and say, "This is an adequate sum", without giving the rationale for what those ratios will be. I remind him of the success that the Secretary of State had when he plucked the figure of £1·25 million out of the sky and felt that it was adequate to settle the teachers' dispute.

Mr. Chris Patten: I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will not regard me as being too legalistic if I say that the effect of the amendments would be decidedly bizarre. As they would add words to the end of clause 2, if enacted they would mean that the remuneration paid under the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965—the salaries of teachers and lecturers—should be paid only if local education authorities had satisfied the Secretary of State that they were providing adequate training and standards for supervisory staff. I cannot believe that that is the Opposition's intention.
I shall address myself to what may be the Opposition's intention. I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. We do not accept that additional training should be a statutory requirement for supervisory staff, which amendment No. 11 implies. It will be open to local education authorities to offer teachers separate contracts to do this work. It cannot be right to require local education authorities to train experienced teachers in the supervision of the midday break. I am sure that local education authorities will be guided by the principle that new supervisory staff must be capable of performing their tasks—covering safety and first aid, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said—and of discharging the authorities' duty of care to the pupils in their charge. No doubt, some recruits will need short courses of training for this purpose—a point that has been taken on board by the Manchester education authority and the Inner London education authority which were considering, independently of this legislation, introducing lunch-time supervision. Authorities have experience in the provision of courses for such staff on which they can build.
The Committee should leave this matter to the local education authorities, which were properly commended earlier by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I take the point that local education authorities and the Government will need to pay particular attention to special schools and units. The Government do

not propose to issue guidance on the ratios of supervisory staff to pupils, which I understand was the thinking behind amendment No. 7. Our concern is to assist local education authorities to put in hand supervision arrangements which provide for work to be done under separate contracts, secure effective supervision over the period of the midday break under the overall authority of the head teacher—this takes up a point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—and do not rely on voluntary participation of teachers. Provided that those objectives are met, we believe that staffing levels and the type of staff to be recruited are best left to local discretion.

Mr. Freud: Will the money be divided equally among LEAs on a per capita basis, or will those who can strike a bargain with their meal supervisors be punished?

Mr. Patten: We have set out in the draft circular which is in the Library the criteria on which we shall allocate funds. It is based on the number of children in an authority area and the number of schools. One must make some allowance for the size of schools and the existence of rural areas, which is why Wales has been treated in the way that it has been. Those details are set out in the circular. I am sure that that should satisfy the hon. Gentleman
Those who press for the Government to prescribe staffing standards for midday supervision should reflect on the fact that no standards have been prescribed for teacher staffing in primary and secondary schools for some time. The Labour Government revoked the regulations relating to maximum class sizes in 1969. The Government do not think that it is right to introduce arrangements to secure the supervision of pupils at midday subject to the conclusion of a national agreement.
We believe that local education authorities are best placed to decide, within broad criteria, what arrangements are best suited to the circumstances of their schools, taking account of existing arrangements that vary from one area to another. For example, it will be for authorities to decide whether teachers should he given the opportunity to participate in supervision and for teachers to decide whether to accept that opportunity. Until the balance between teaching and non-teaching staff within the new arrangements is known, it would be premature to attempt a national agreement. Whether there should ultimately be a national agreement on midday supervision is not an issue for the Government, who would not be a party to it. It is a matter for the local education authorities and the staff whom they employ to resolve in the light of experience. I do not hear much support for the call made by the National Association of Head Teachers for a national agreement.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggested that midday supervision can be done only by teachers. That was a point that I sought to answer during the Second Reading of this admirable little measure. Already many people who are not teachers are employed to assist with supervision—about 90,000. Many adults are responsible for the safety and welfare of children in other areas. I do not believe that it is a job that can be done only by teachers. I therefore hope that the Committee will resist the two amendments.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister is being a little legalistic. Of course the Bill is difficult to amend, because it is unspecific. If the Minister would like to draft some amendments to the Bill on Report we would look at them


with great sympathy and kindness. I am sure that his staff would have no difficulty in amending the Bill, if only the will was there. Unfortunately, the will is not there. The Government have said that they do not accept that there should be statutory training. The Labour party believes that the Government are wrong and that they will regret that decision. Time will prove that it is necessary to have statutory levels of training for the serious job of supervising children in schools.
The Minister talked about that being the responsibility of local education authorities and said that they should have short courses. He will of course, recognise that it will mean extra expense for the authorities if they take their responsibilities seriously. Does he believe that short courses at the discretion of local education authorities are adequate to deal with the problems that we have discussed? He said he believed that they should work within broad criteria. Is it his intention to publish those critieria, because they are certainly not laid down in the Bill?
If the Minister is saying that the Government will come forward with certain criteria, for example, minimum standards and guidelines within which local education authorities will work, we welcome that. That is what he appeared to say in the Bill. If not, he was referring to other criteria set by other people. I understood him to mean that the Government would come forward with the criteria. We would welcome that, because we believe it to be necessary.
The Minister also seemed to suggest that special schools were a particular case. What will the Government do to protect all children with special educational needs, not only those at special schools? I am sure that he recalls the provisions of the Education Act 1981, which ensures that children with special educational needs are educated alongside other children in ordinary schools. They, too, have particular needs of safety and discipline.
Is the Minister seriously saying that he does not believe that children with special educational needs require specially trained staff to supervise them at lunchtime? He cannot mean that. He knows that I was referring, not to teaching staff, but specifically to trained staff. For children at special schools with special educational needs, and physically and mentally handicapped children, it is wrong for the Government to say that they can be supervised by untrained and unqualified staff.
If anything goes wrong when the Bill is put into practice in schools, the Government will regret it. I urge them now to publish the guidelines or broad criteria to which they are working. In the hope that they will think again seriously about safety, particularly that of children with special educational needs, and in the belief that the Minister is serious about addressing the problems and will reconsider them on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end add—
'(2) Section 2A above shall not apply to nursery schools.'.
Before the Minister jumps up to tell us that the amendment will not have the effect that he thinks we intend, let me tell him that we wish to take the opportunity to probe the Government on how they see the measure

affecting nursery schools. If the amendment is impractical, we shall not be too disappointed. However, we shall be disappointed if the Minister fails to answer this question: in practice, what does he expect to happen in nursery schools?
The Minister has some major problems to sort out. In an earlier debate, he did not seem to be able to answer the question about the difference between supervision and education in the lunch hour. He will have greater difficulty in telling us where supervision finishes and where education starts in the nursery school.
In nursery education, the teacher and the nursery nurse have a different tradition of training and a clear difference in function, one being involved with education and the other in looking after the children, although in practice in many nursery schools it is often difficult to see where the skills of the one finish and the skills of the other start.
At lunchtime there will be greater difficulty in working out how to separate the supervision role from the education role. Anyone involved in looking after 3 to 5-year-olds in nursery schools will feel that it is part of the education to encourage the children to eat their midday meal in a civilised way and talk to each other, as well as to experiment with food that they are not likely to get at home. The teachers can talk about the nutritional content of the food and encourage the children to widen their taste so that they become interested in a wide range of foods. Those are educational areas. It would unfortunate if the Government want to give someone rate of pay that encourages him simply to supervise the children and see that they do not do any physical damage, rather than to carry out an educational role.
What does the Minister envisage will happen in the nursery schools? Does he envisage the nursery nurses working through lunchtime, or having a staggered lunch hour, whereas the nursery teacher will stop work at some point, and his or her role will be taken over by the person involved with lunchtime supervision? Then the teacher will start work again, having had a half hour or three quarters of an hour break. There will be great difficulties in making the Bill work effectively in nursery schools. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he thinks it will work.

11 pm

Mr. Chris Patten: Two points set the argument in context and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, not unreasonably, they have determined our approach to the question. First, five out of six nursery pupils attend school part time, for either the morning or the afternoon, so the great majority do not need to be supervised during the midday break. Secondly, nursery schools and classes necessarily employ more non-teaching staff than other schools. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, and as parents of young children will immediately appreciate, these very young pupils need more supervision at all times and not just at midday. That need is reflected in the fact that non-teaching staff out number teachers in these schools.
Local education authorities may consider that there are already adequate arrangements for supervision of pupils remaining on the premises at midday, but some may wish to make additional provision. That will be their choice in the light of the staffing of their schools. Authorities will be able to use ESG money for the supervision of pupils in nursery schools if they think it right to do so. If they decide


to offer separate contracts, there is no reason why those contracts should be treated differently from contracts for staff in other schools in terms of the Remuneration of Teachers Act.
The distinction between lunchtime supervision and extracurricular work at lunchtime, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred on several occasions, was made as long ago as the 1945 regulations and in the Rossetti report and subsequently, so although we all appreciate the distinction I think that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman is—to return to a word that we have both used—making a somewhat legalistic point.

Mr. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

11·3 pm

Mr. Chris Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Government's purpose in this admirable little Bill is clear. We are seeking to promote the education of pupils by assisting local education authorities to make arrangements for supervision at midday which will ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of schools. As I have said before, I have been surprised at the objections raised by the Opposition on Second Reading and in our earlier consideration of the Bill today. I should have expected people as genuinely interested as I know that they are in the wellbeing of the education service to welcome this long overdue measure.
I would like to comment briefly on some of the objections that have been raised. We are accused of taking control of money which would otherwise have been available to local education authorities to spend as they wished. In respect of other ESG activities to be supported through education support grants, we have indeed said that the money should be found through redeployment within the total of planned expenditure on education, but we have recognised that midday supervision is a new demand which requires new money.
Under the arrangements that we propose, 70 per cent. of the additional cost of midday supervision arrangements which are approved for ESG support this year and next will be met from the Exchequer. There will be no reduction in block grant as a result of this proposal, so we cannot be accused of asking authorities to bid for their own money. Authorities will need to find the remaining 30 per cent. if they wish to qualify for ESG support, but that will be their own choice. No authority which does not wish to do so will be forced to seek ESG money for this purpose.
I hope that, in practice, most authorities will see the advantage of using the assistance we are offering to improve their arrangements for midday supervision. Some local education authorities are already acting to introduce arrangements along the lines we propose. We expect that many more will do so.
We have also been accused of rushing this measure through with unseemly haste, but the need in our schools is clearly, alas, urgent. The General Secretary of the Secondary Heads Association has been quoted as saying:
the urgency of the situation was such that delay might have extremely serious implications for pupils, parents and local communities".

The Association's members are in a position to know the damage being done to our schools. I might add that the Association has broadly welcomed our proposals. Like all of the other teacher bodies, it was consulted about our draft circular.
A more substantial objection, if it were true—which it decidedly is not—is that we are prepared to bring forward proposals on this subject but not to do anything to resolve the dispute about teachers' pay. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made that point earlier. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put to the House many times. We want an end to this damaging dispute. We have done all that we can to achieve a settlement that is fair to all parties to the bargain. We should not forget that that must include the taxpayers and ratepayers who must ultimately foot the bill. They must find the £1·25 billion of new money that we have proposed.
Against that background, it is mischievous of Opposition Members to suggest that we should not go ahead with the Bill until employers and teachers reach a pay agreement for 1985–86. We all hope that an agreement will soon be reached. There is a meeting tomorrow, which I hope will move matters forward constructively. The Government will continue to try to find ways in which to bring the dispute to an end which is fair—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That does not arise on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Patten: In that case, I shall come even more speedily to an exceptionally brief peroration. The Bill seeks to solve a longstanding problem which has caused increasing difficulties in our schools. I therefore commend it to the House.

Mr. Giles Radice: We oppose the Bill receiving a Third Reading for the same reasons as we opposed its receiving a Second Reading. We object to the way in which education support grants are now being funded. Although we do not oppose the principle of specific grants, we oppose the Secretary of State removing money from hard-pressed local authorities to use it for his own purposes.
I accept that the Government will provide £28 million for 1986–87 to support supervision at midday. However, as the Minister admitted, local education authorities will have to provide £12 million out of their own resources and they will lose control over a further £12 million of their money.
Against the background of the growing crises of provision in our schools and the growing squeeze on education resources, we condemn the Government's failure to provide new money to cover all education support grants. We also oppose the Bill because we object to its timing. We recognise the strong case for a fully staffed ancillary service at lunchtime, but the Government have not answered some serious questions about training and staffing.
The Secretary of State is rushing through the Bill during the dispute without consulting the teachers, and that is understandably considered to be provocative, particularly since the £40 million approved expenditure comes from the so-called "envelope" of £1·25 billion which the Government say is available under certain conditions for teachers' pay.
The third reason why we are against the Bill is the Government's sense of priorities. There is a glaring contrast between the Secretary of State's eagerness to rush the Bill through the House and his inactivity in solving the teachers' dispute. Since August the Secretary of State has either wrung his hands or sat on them. The dispute over teachers' pay has lasted 18 months in Scotland and 11 months in England and Wales, inflicting great damage on our children's education.
The Government must now set up an inquiry. It has responsibility for the education service—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the Bill.

Mr. Radice: The Government must take responsibility for finding a solution to this damaging dispute.
The Bill does nothing to tackle the desperate shortage of money and crisis of provision in our schools. It is illtimed. Above all, it does nothing to bring an end to the teachers' dispute. For those reasons, we oppose the Bill.

Mr. Freud: The Minister described the measure as an admirable little Bill. That is how King Edward VII referred to the Kaiser. My right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the Bill, mainly because of its irrelevance, and because the Minister has failed to provide anything remotely like supervision at mealtimes. He is providing only for people to stand around while children eat.
I oppose the Bill because it does nothing to make education in 1986 less awful than it was in 1985. What is more, it takes £40 million out of education expenditure which might have helped solve the teachers' dispute. I oppose it because it will do nothing towards finding a solution, and nothing towards setting up an inquiry that might finally help education.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already reproached the Minister and the Opposition spokesman. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Freud: I wanted to show the unity throughout the House. I can see no good cause—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that I am the only right hon. Gentleman who is out of step, but I am the only one in step. I hope that he will get in step with me.

Mr. Freud: I accept that and shall move on quickly.
Our opposition to the Bill is predominantly because it does nothing new. The only new step taken by the Secretary of State recently was to appoint the hon. Ladies the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to junior posts because he is the only man in the House who does not know the difference between them. I welcome their appointments, but I hope that their talents will be used in future for more acceptable causes.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 66.

Division No. 29]
[11.15 pm>


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack





Atkinson, David (B m'th E)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Baldry, Tony
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bellingham, Henry
Hunter, Andrew


Benyon, William
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Blackburn, John
Jackson, Robert


Body, Richard
Jessel, Toby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knowles, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Latham, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruinvels, Peter
Lester, Jim


Burt, Alistair
Lord, Michael


Butterfill, John
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Carttiss, Michael
Maclean, David John


Cash, William
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Chapman, Sydney
McQuarrie, Albert


Chope, Christopher
Major, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Malins, Humfrey


Conway, Derek
Malone, Gerald


Coombs, Simon
Marlow, Antony


Cope, John
Mather, Carol


Corrie, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cranborne, Viscount
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Crouch, David
Merchant, Piers


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Dicks, Terry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Moate, Roger


Durant, Tony
Moynihan, Hon C.


Dykes, Hugh
Murphy, Christopher


Evennett, David
Neubert, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Newton, Tony


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Favell, Anthony
Normanton, Tom


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Norris, Steven


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forth, Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Galley, Roy
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Powley, John


Gow, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gower, Sir Raymond
Raffan, Keith


Greenway, Harry
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Ground, Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Spencer, Derek


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Squire, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harris, David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Harvey, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hayward, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Heddle, John
Waller, Gary


Hickmet, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Hind, Kenneth
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Hirst, Michael



Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Holt, Richard
Mr. Francis Maude.


Howard, Michael





NOES


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bruce, Malcolm


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Caborn, Richard


Bermingham, Gerald
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Boyes, Roland
Campbell-Savours, Dale






Clarke, Thomas
Kennedy, Charles


Clelland, David Gordon
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leighton, Ronald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dixon, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ewing, Harry
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rogers, Allan


Fisher, Mark
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Foulkes, George
Snape, Peter


Freud, Clement
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Steel, Rt Hon David


Golding, John
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hardy, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Alex Carlile and


Howells, Geraint
Mr. James Wallace.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Education Support Grants

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.
The draft regulations amend the Education Support Grants Regulations 1984 so as to add one further item to the purposes for which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales may pay grant. The additional purpose is
securing the supervision of pupils in schools at midday".
My right hon. Friends have consulted the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Welsh Joint Education Committee about their proposals. Those associations raised no objections to the amendment effected by the draft regulations.
There has already been considerable debate in the House on our proposal to pay education support grants for midday supervision. I do not want to flog an argument which has long since been deceased. Therefore, I shall concentrate on two points which have a particular bearing on the draft regulations.
First, I shall explain more fully the resources which the Government are making available for this purpose. We shall add £10 million to relevent expenditure for local authorities in this financial year. The aggregate of Exchequer grants to local authorities will be increased by
£7 million, representing 70 per cent. of the total which will be supported through education support grants, if the draft regulations are approved. For next year, the sums involved are £40 million and £28 million respectively. Those additions for 1986–87 can be made available only if the Education (Amendment) Bill, which the House has just read a Third time, receives Royal Assent.
Secondly, hon. Members may welcome some information about the nature of new arrangements which might result from our proposals. The description in the amendment regulations is deliberately drawn widely. My right hon. Friends have no wish to prescribe the details of any arrangements which local education authorities consider suitable for their authorities and schools. Before approving expenditure for education support grant, they will wish to be sure that the proposed arrangements satisfy a few simple criteria. Those criteria are described in the draft circular, a copy of which is in the Library.
We have received some helpful comments on the draft circular from the local authority and teacher associations, and others who were invited to comment, and we will look at the draft again in the light of those comments. If the regulations receive the approval of Parliament, we shall issue the circular to all local education authorities inviting them to submit proposals for approval for education support grant. Our aim is that grant should be payable on expenditure incurred from the beginning of the spring term so that authorities may move ahead quickly with their plans to provide proper supervision at midday.
I ask the House to approve the amendment regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education Support Grants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1985, which were laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That, in the course of its consideration of the matter of the recommendations of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council concerning higher education in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 20th January 1986 at half-past 10 o'clock.—[Mr. Mather.]

ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
That Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Sir Antony Buck, Mr. Roger Freeman, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Stanley, Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. Peter Viggers and Mr. James Wallace be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—[Mr. Mather.]

House of Commons Members' Fund

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st December 1985 as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,355 of such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,353 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,545 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £6,543 per annum, whichever is the less:
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit,
they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum, as in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—
(a) £1,372 if the payments are made to a past Member; and
(b) £686 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.
The motion is in the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who share with me the responsibility, as trustees, of administering the fund.
The purpose of the motion is to provide for and to increase the present levels of grants and payments which may be made under the Members' fund legislation, in line with the recent increases approved for public service and national insurance retirement pensions.
Members of this House now enjoy pension rights under the parliamentary contributory pension fund, but this has not always been so. Former colleagues who left the House before 1964 have no pension whatever from the House.


Many of them live in considerably reduced, and indeed straitened circumstances, not least those who are now of advanced years and, even more so, the widows or widowers of former Members. The Members' fund has existed since 1939 to provide assistance where necessary to former Members and their dependants, but the help that my fellow trustees and I are empowered to give from the fund is extremely modest.

Mr. Tom Clarke: What is the present annual rate of payment from the fund?

Mr. Morris: The present annual rate is £138,000.
The trustees are deeply conscious of the need for more help from the fund and are urgently considering what steps might be taken to achieve improvement.
A further problem is that the needs of former colleagues or their widows or widowers are not always known to us, which is why on occasions like this some attention to the fund's work is important. I shall be most grateful if right hon. and hon. Members will get in touch with me if they become aware of any former Members or their dependants who are in need of help that the fund can provide.
I need not detain the House for long, as the provisions for which I and my fellow trustees seek approval are set out in detail in the motion. In paragraph 1(a) we set out the new provisions for grants to ex-hon. Members. At present the trustees are authorised to make grants to ex-Members of up to £2,199, provided that the total income of the applicant, including the grant, does not exceed £4,067. By this motion the grant is raised to £2,355 and the income limit to £4,353. To this is added a provision by which the trustees will be authorised to make larger payments, having due regard to length of service and need, of a grant of up to £4,545, provided that the income of the applicant, together with the grant, does not exceed £6,543.
Grants to widows are set out under subparagraph (b). At present the grant to an ex-Member's widow is £1,101, provided that her income, with the grant, does not exceed £2,969. This grant is raised to £1,179, and the income limit raised to £3,177. There follows the provision by which, having regard to her husband's length of service, or to need, the trustees will be enabled to make grants of up to £2,268, provided that the widow's income, with the grant, does not exceed £4,266.
Grants to widowers are set out in subparagraph (c), and the provisions there are similar to those for widows in subparagraph (b).
Subparagraph (d) refers to the "as of right" payments from the Members' fund to former Members who had 10 years of service before October 1964, and to widows and widowers of such Members, provided for by the House of Commons Members' fund, and the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, which came into force on 19 March 1981. We now seek to increase the payments, at present at the rate of £1,282 per annum, to former Members to £1,372 per annum, and the payments to widows or widowers from £641 per annum to £686 per annum.
These new provisions will all be effective from 1 December 1985. They provide for increases of approximately 7 per cent. across the board, in line with the provisions in the Pensions Increase (Review) Order 1985, and the additional expenditure arising from the motion will be £9,800.
I hope that the motion will receive the unanimous support of the House, for I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the experience of the trustees has made us realise how urgently this further provision is needed and how very much it will be welcomed by the fund's beneficiaries.
Finally, I wish to thank most warmly Mr. J. L. G.Dobson, the Accountant, and his colleagues in the Fees Office, both for their constant help to the trustees and for their ever humane concern for the wellbeing of those whom we serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of tie House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended, and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1st December 1985 as follows:
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,355 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,353 per annum whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £4,545 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £6,543 per annum, whichever is the less:
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,179 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £3,177 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,268 or such sum, as in the opinim of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £4,266 per annum, whichever is the less:
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words: 'the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be—
(a) £1,372 if the payments are made to a past Member; and
(b) £686 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.

Fuel Poverty

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maude.]

Mr. Geraint Howells: When the unnaturally cold spell hit us in November, many thousands of householders up and down the country were alarmed, for they saw ahead of them yet another long, dreary winter following on a cold and wet summer, with the ever-rising fuel bills that this means. This thought is depressing enough for the moderately affluent among us, but for those on the poverty line, or beneath it, it spells disaster and, for many, the inevitable cutting off of supplies because of the lack of ability to pay.
The Electricity Consumers Council recently issued disconnection figures up to 30 September of this year which show that the number of disconnections in England and Wales is now running at nearly 100,000 a year. The Liberal party commission on poverty in 1982 pointed out that one quarter of all local authority tenants are the victims of fuel poverty, while a further quarter are potential victims.
Age Concern tells us that seven years ago it was estimated that 90 per cent. of elderly people were unable to heat their homes up to the required 70 deg F to keep themselves warm and healthy in the winter months, and there is very little evidence that the position is improving. The consequences of inadequate heating for the elderly are often illness and, in some cases, death. We are all familiar with the sad stories of old people shivering in their poorly heated houses, terrified of the financial consequences of turning up the heat. Fuel costs have risen steeply in the last decade, and although prices have levelled off somewhat during the last two or three years the overall rise in the cost of fuel and light in real terms during the decade was 37·4 per cent., far outstripping other items in the household budget.
The people who have suffered most from the increase in fuel costs are inevitably the poor. They tend to live in bad housing, with inadequate insulation, often with the additional problems of dampness and condensation. They are seldom able to choose the kind of heating that they want and often end up with expensive and inefficient heating systems. This leads to a ridiculous situation, where those who can afford it least have to pay the most to keep themselves moderately warm. It is no wonder, therefore, that this leads to a failure to pay bills and to consequent misery.
We believe, as do the charities, that the White Paper that was published today will do little to help. Indeed, we feel that the difficulties will be even greater, both for the low paid who cannot heat their homes and for those charities that are involved in insulating several thousand homes in Britain.
The abolition of additional payments, including heating allowances for supplementary benefit claimants, will have serious consequences. The replacement of supplementary benefit by a system of income support containing a theoretical heating component may sound reasonable, but in practice it will lead to some very unpleasant choices for many households where budgets are strained to the limit. It could well be a stark choice between eating and keeping warm, with disastrous results for vulnerable groups, particularly the elderly.
I am also extremely alarmed that all other heating benefits to households, with special problems—those with young children or with ill, disabled or elderly people—will be abolished merely as an administrative convenience. It is also obvious that the abolition of single payments will jeopardise the future of insulation projects run by charities such as Neighbourhood Energy Action. In fact, the "Right to Fuel" campaign has said that DHSS single payments account for 80 per cent. of all insulation work carried out by the NEA.
Since 1981, this excellent group has carried out 120,000 jobs and has helped the elderly and disadvantaged to get the benefit of home insulation. At the same time, it has created about 2,500 jobs under the Government's community programme. Furthermore, it has opened up a new and thriving market for insulation projects. Will that work now be put at risk?
I believe that the present Administration, in their unseemly scramble to save money wherever they can at any cost, are in danger of reinforcing their public image as an uncaring, unsympathetic Government who are so intent on introducing tax cuts before the next election that they are careless of the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.
The White Paper represents a lost opportunity. It should have made an attempt to tackle the problem of fuel poverty, and it should have recognised the crucial role that single payments play in keeping the poor warm. The Government should take positive steps to make resources available for a special fund, as recommended by the Neighbourhood Energy Action movement, to provide a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to the insulation needs of the poor.
On a wider scale, greater efforts should be made to improve the housing stock and to ensure that building improvements and renovations are not subject to a crippling tax. Age Concern, a leading charity in the care of the elderly, has made many useful recommendations that the Government could well take on board and which would prove beneficial to all impoverished sections of society. It recommends that there should be mandatory payments for special circumstances, such as higher fuel bills in exceptionally severe weather. There should also be payments for draught proofing materials and insulation, repairs to heating appliances and so on.
I also believe that there should be a uniform and humane policy throughout Britain on disconnection procedures and repayment facilities, and that special payments should be made for reconnection. Fuel bills should be paid when disconnection may cause serious risk.
Will the Minister reassure the House that the Government are conscious of the need to modify their policies to fit the realities of life? After all, even the poorest among us are entitled to the basic requirements, including adequate heating. It is wrong that so many in this affluent society must face a miserable existence, and in this season of good will I hope that it will be possible for the Government to show just the smallest glimmer of compassion.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) have the


consent of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) to take part in the debate?

Mr. Bruce: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) for giving me the chance to speak in this important debate.
I and others are grateful that the unfair trigger mechanism that was highlighted last year has been phased out, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is still a feeling particularly in northern parts of the country, that the system is unfair, because those in the northern parts—particularly the poorer members of the community—who have, by definition, higher heating costs, need additional help which is not yet available. The Government should try to ensure that such help is given.
The fact that a trigger mechanism could even be contemplated is indicative of the bias that exists against the northern areas. The temperature did not have to sink to freezing point in Penzance for people there to secure a benefit, but in my constituency, the temperature had to sink to 2·7 deg. below freezing—and that was on the coast. Temperatures inland were 10 deg. C. lower, but people still did not qualify for benefit. Getting rid of that system is one step, but we need another step to ensure help for those in colder parts of the country.
No doubt the Minister will say that the Government's contribution to fuel allowances has increased from £100 million to £400 million a year since they came to power. That is creditable, because it shows that the Government are willing to make a contribution to fuel costs, but we have not made the logical link of trying to help those on low incomes to reduce fuel costs. After all, some do not qualify for help, but still face high costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned the neighbourhood energy action schemes, which have been welcome. I was recently pleased to launch a scheme in my constituency. It took 13 people off the long-term unemployment register and gave poorer members of the community the opportunity to insulate their homes, so that they had lower fuel bills and higher temperatures. The risks of hypothermia were reduced and everyone was happy. It is important that such assistance, which we welcome, should be boosted and extended and not cut.
Many elderly people and those on low incomes are worried about standing charges on fuel bills. I was disappointed that the opportunity to abolish standing charges was not taken in the Gas Bill. Worse than that, when the Bill came before the House, the Secretary of State said that the best that he could write into the Bill was that the British Gas Corporation should use its best endeavours to keep the increases in standing charges in line with, or lower than, the rate of inflation. That is not good enough. We want to get rid of those charges and ensure that people on low incomes have help to meet fuel costs, help to be warmer and more comfortable and help to insulate their homes. I hope that the Minister will take up those points with his colleagues in the Department of Energy. They are linked.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): I listened with interest to the hon. Members for Ceredigion and

Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I understand and share many of the concerns which they have expressed and congratulate them on the way in which they have expressed them.
The issues raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North ranged wide and covered both fuel policy and the alleviation of poverty. He spread the net even wider by referring to draught proofing, housing and a variety of allied matters. I propose to refer briefly to energy prices, although strictly speaking they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I propose to devote most of my remarks to the help given to the less well-off through the social security system, but I shall attempt to touch upon the specific issues raised by the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and for Gordon.
Both hon. Members mentioned the projects that have been undertaken by various neighbourhood energy action groups. There is not a great deal that I can say about them this evening, save that I recognise the good work that has been done by the groups. Decisions have yet to be taken on how they will be funded in future. That is a matter that we are considering. I hope that it will be understood thal I can go no further than that this evening.
The hon. Member for Gordon referred to some of the absurdities of the exceptionally severe weather payments and the disapproval last year which that method of making payments received in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman will know that the chief adjudicating officer issued fresh guidance about the payments only recently. We are considering the guidance and the future of that form of assistance with heating bills. The hon. Gentleman will know that last year the payments amounted to only £1·7 million, while administrative costs were £1 million. I mention those figures, not to denigrate the help that was given, but to put them in the context of the £400 million worth of heating addition payments to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North illustrated the extent to which the cost of fuel is relevant to those on low incomes. I accept that view. It is an important view, and I accept what he had to say on that score. Fuel is clearly a basic necessity, especially for the elderly and the sick. I recognise the concern that is felt by many on low incomes when it comes to paying for fuel. I shall come to what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under our new proposals to try to alleviate that concern.
Reluctant though I am to do so, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North about the term "fuel poverty". It is a phrase which is often used these days, and upon examination it is a rather curious concept. The general idea of poverty itself is far from straightforward. We can recognise it, but it is not always easy to define it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the standard rate of supplementary benefit for adults has more than doubled in real terms since 1948 and that this benefit is the primary means of alleviating poverty, and has been so under successive Governments for some years. Yet the hon. Gentleman talks of fuel poverty. We do not hear a great deal about clothes poverty, or food poverty, but fuel poverty appears in a rather curious fashion to have developed a life of its own. Fuel, like clothes, food and all the other necessities for rich or poor alike is paid for out of people's normal income.
I recognise that individual need for expenditure on fuel can vary, but that is true of other necessities. I do not wish to make too much of what may seem to be a matter of semantics, but it is often misleading to talk about fuel poverty as if it were some special breed of poverty that necessarily requires different measures from those that are generally used to support the less well-off. An effective attack on poverty, which we all wish to see, comes in many guises—for example, benefit rates, control of price increases, economic stability and economic growth. Energy prices are a part of that tapestry, but only a part.
Although the general financial framework within which the gas and electricity industries operate is agreed with the Government, price increases remain a matter for the industries themselves. The Government do not set prices and do not have the power to so. Tariffs must reflect the industries' costs and provide a proper return on the substantial capital resources that they employ. They are not a means of indirect taxation. I call in evidence to support my proposition the relatively low level of price rises in recent years, which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North acknowledged. They have been below the rate of inflation in the past two years and charges have therefore fallen in real terms. After allowing for inflation, the price of gas to the home is roughly what it was in 1970.
The hon. Member for Gordon addressed himself to standing charges. I know that these charges have been a cause of deep concern to many for many years, especially to the elderly. The charges reflect the necessary cost of keeping a supply available to the consumer in his own home for 24 hours a day. They cover the maintenance of the connection, meter reading, accounting, billing and emergency services. The costs arise no matter how much or how little gas or electricity is consumed by the individual householder.
The abolition of standing charges, although self-evidently attractive in some ways, is not an easy option. It would cost the gas and electricity industries more than £1·1 billion a year in lost revenue. Abolition for pensioners alone—if we could determine which pensioners should have abolition, whether it should affect people living on their own and all the other details that must be decided—would cost about £300 million. That lost revenue would have to be recovered by substantial increases in unit prices, which would penalise many of those who, through age, sickness, infirmity or some other reason, need more heat, even though they may be among the least well off.
That raises the question, which may have flashed through the mind of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, whether there should be special tariffs or free allowances for people on low incomes. That has been considered in the past, but successive Governments have concluded that it would be an expensive, ill-directed and probably ineffective means of helping those most in need. In 1976, the Labour Government announced that they had reviewed possible help through concessionary or restricted tariffs or free allowances of gas and electricity. Their conclusion—I quote from the report's foreword which was written by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—was that these did not offer
a satisfactory way of helping poor consumers with their fuel bills".

I am sure that the right hon. Member was right, and I suspect that the Liberal party thought so too, because, as far as I am aware, it expressed no contrary view at the time. Successive Governments have therefore taken the view that help is best given through the social security system. That help is considerable.
More than £40 billion is spent on social security—about a third of all Government spending. We have kept the major benefit rates ahead of the rise in prices during the lifetime of the Government and, because of the increases in benefit last month in line with inflation, we increased our spending by a further £2 billion a year. The main help for the less well off with their day-to-day living expenses, including fuel costs, is through the standard weekly rates of supplementary benefit. Those rates increased by 6 per cent. in real terms between November 1978 and November 1984 and were increased again last month in line with inflation. They have doubled in real terms since 1948, and I think that every hon. Member welcomes that.
On top of those benefit rates, we provide extra weekly help for those with special needs. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned people with special needs—the elderly, the very young, the sick and the disabled. Each is entitled to heating additions. Last year we spent more than £400 million on those heating additions, which is £140 million more in real terms than any previous Government have spent at any time. Since 1979, we have extended the help available. In November 1979 we introduced a basic rate of heating addition for pensioner householders over 75. Over the years, we have extended the age range so that this now takes in pensioner householder over 65. We have introduced a similar addition for the under-fives. Last November, we introduced a new higher rate of heating addition, worth well over £200 a year—a considerable sum—payable automatically to householders over 85. We have also assisted disabled people. Since 1980, we have paid a higher rate of heating addition automatically to severely disabled people people on supplementary benefit who receive attendance or mobility allowance or its equivalent. Last month, we introduced a further measure—automatic entitlement to a basic rate heating addition for sick and disabled householder claimants on the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. As a result of these changes, we estimate that 60 per cent. of all people on supplementary benefit and 90 per cent. of supplementary benefit pensioners now receive a heating addition. That is a dramatic improvement on the position before 1979 and represents a considerable attack on what the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to as "fuel poverty".
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the White Paper proposals. I should like to explain why we felt it right to move forward and reform these arrangements, as announced in the White Paper which was published today. The answer is that heating additions are merely a means of giving more help to certain groups of claimants who may have extra heating needs. The additions are better, in our view, than tariff adjustments and certainly better than nothing, but they are not the only, or necessarily the best, form of assistance.
Heating additions are a rather curious mixture. Many are paid automatically on grounds such as age, but others involve detailed questioning on matters such as the claimant's health. There is a complex array of rates, rules


and regulations. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North did not feel that the White Paper would be an improvement on the present rather muddled situation. He asked me whether I was conscious of the need to modify policy to match reality. That is what we believe the White Paper is doing. I hope that, upon reflection, it will be shown that we are right, although I acknowledge that it is a controversial issue at present.
In the White Paper we are proposing an income support scheme to replace the current weekly supplementary benefit. Income support will continue to provide set allowances for normal living expenses, including fuel costs. There will also be premium payments for families, pensioners, sick and disabled people and lone parents to help with the extra expenses that those groups tend to have—including extra heating costs. That will mean a system that is simpler than the present one. It will be easier for the public and staff to understand. It will cut out much of the intrusive questioning that now takes place—I think that everyone will welcome that—and it will also effectively direct extra help to groups of people who are likely to face extra expenses.
As I said in the House only a couple of weeks ago, the fact that we shall not call the premiums "heating additions" does not mean that they do not exist, that the cash is not in the claimant's pocket and that it cannot be used towards fuel costs. We believe that income support will, in future, be a better means of delivering that help and we intend that the money spent on heating additions will be included in the resources available for the new scheme. Nor are we alone in that view. The Social Security Advisory

Committee commented similarly on the Green Paper in June. The committee welcomed the idea of premium payments in income support for different groups. Moreover, the Select Committee on Social Services said that it
broadly accepted the principle of premiums reflecting the additional needs of individual client groups".
Therefore, I think that a substantial amount has been done, is being done and will continue to be done to meet the needs of people who face difficulties with fuel poverty through poor or low incomes. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will accept that we are sincere in our intention to help those people meet the difficulties that they face.
I also hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will see the wisdom of the approach that we set before the House in the White Paper today and that we shall seek to carry through in a Bill early in the new year. I am confident that when the House debates the Bill, it will take that view. I hope that it will carry the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues with it at that time.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that people should be able to afford adequate heating. We share that concern and we shall continue to offer substantial assistance to that end, but we shall do so in a way that we regard as simpler and more effective than the current system. We believe that our proposals will meet those criteria and I hope that in due course they will be endorsed by the House and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North who raised the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.